Answers to Catholic Converts, 4

In this response, I will first address Rebecca's correct correlation of opposites - specifically, Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Judah vs. Satan the lion who prowls the earth seeking whom he will devour.

In Genesis 49:8-12 we find the prophecy of the coming Messiah, Jesus, the Lion. He would be descended from the Israelite tribe of Judah. This prophecy finds its fulfillment in Matthew's genealogy, chapter 1, verses 1-2, and Luke's genealogy, chapter 3, verse 33. The Apostle John describes the Lord as the Lion of the tribe of Judah in Rev. 5:5. Hebrews 7:14 also testifies to Jesus' descent from Judah.

Satan is described as a lion by Peter, (1 Peter 5:8). So the question arises, why has the Holy Spirit used the symbolism of the lion to represent both good and evil?

Answer: He does so because He wishes to teach us of the methods of Satan and his Antichrist. These methods include their false claims which mimic and counterfeit the true claims of Jesus Christ. Allow me to explain.

As King of kings, (Rev.17:14, Rev.19:11), Christ is rightly identified with the lion, king of the wild beasts. The recent Disney animated feature, The Lion King, confirms the common belief in lion as king. But Christ is not the only one who would be King. Satan, the Lord's rival and adversary, would also be king.

(a)   As Christ is called 'the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, the Lord of lords,' (1 Timothy 6:15), Satan is called the 'prince of this world,' (John 12:31;14:30; 16:11). He proved his rulership of the world in his temptation of Christ, Luke 4: 5-6. The Greek word, "archon," is translated 'prince,' but may also be interpreted to mean 'chief,' 'first,' or 'ruler.'

(b)   As Christ demands obedience of His subjects, (John 14:15), Satan demands obedience of his subjects, (Acts 5:3).

(c)   As Christ is sovereign in setting His captive Elect free, (John 8:31-32, John 15:16; Romans 9:15-16; Eph. 1:4, etc.), Satan is sovereign in taking the unsaved captive at will, (2 Timothy 2:26).

(d)   Jesus reigns as King of His people, the unique God-man. Satan reigns as prince and god of his people, "the god of this world, (II Cor. 4:4). Isaiah 14 explains at length Satan's unquenchable desire to be "like the most High."

Here we see a few similarities between the true King, Jesus, and His rival the false king, Satan.

Through further study of the Word, we discover Satan's son, the Antichrist, is the Man Who Would Be King. He is described as having the mouth of a lion, Rev. 13:2.  He is seen as the king of the world, demanding obedience, Rev. 13:16-17. As a god, he demands and receives worship, Rev. 13:4. Incredibly, Scripture predicts he elevates himself above all that is called God or worshipped, II Thess. 2:4.

There is yet another title held by both Christ and the Devil. In Isaiah 14:12 we read, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning." Using a concordance, we discover that Satan's name, Lucifer, is from the Latin, which, in turn, translates from the Hebrew as "morning star." Jesus is called "the day star," (II Peter 1:19), and "the bright and morning star," (Rev. 22:16). So here we have identical titles for Satan and Christ, which prove, once again, the nature of Satan's mission: to imitate and usurp Christ's position as not only king, but as God, Prophet and High Priest.

The same can be said for Satan's son, the son of perdition, the Antichrist, who is made in the image and likeness of his father, the Dragon. Once we make this connection, i.e., that Satan and his Antichrist imitate Christ in all His offices and in all His miracles, we can now begin to eliminate potential candidates, zeroing in on the one who fits all the requirements necessary for the office of Antichrist. Those who do not profess to be king and ruler of the Christian Church do not qualify. Those who do not profess to be God on earth do not qualify. Those who do not profess be the chief and first among all Christians do not qualify. Those who do not claim to hold a unique descent and genealogy, as did Christ, do not qualify. Also, those who have not a history of devouring and destroying the innocent saints of God, as does Satan the Lion, do not qualify.

I ask the readership, which leader in the Christian Church of the past and the present, claims to be king, chief, and ruler over the Church? Does he also claim to be God on earth, having God-like powers and attributes? Does he claim a descent and genealogy claimed by no one else? Has he a history of murdering the innocent? If he does fulfill all these prophecies, then he may well be the Antichrist predicted to come.

Rebecca writes, "You're telling me that it's unnatural for a seed to grow up into a plant."

I respond: Please re-read my last post. I stated that it is unnatural for an herb, (which is a plant), to grow into a tree. This is because they are of two different orders in the plant kingdom. As such, it is impossible for either of them to cross over from one order to another. Botanists have developed a system of classification called Taxonomy which enables them to categorize all that comprises the plant kingdom. By using a simple dictionary, we discover that the word "plant" may be defined as "an herb, as distinguished from a tree or a shrub." Webster's defines "herb" as "any seed plant whose stem withers away to the ground after each seasons growth, as distinguished from a tree or shrub whose woody stem lives from year to year." The mustard plant is an herb. The Greek word for "tree" in Matt. 13:32 is "dendron." This same term is used today in the word "dendrology," "the scientific study of trees and woody plants, especially their taxonomy." Although both a tree and mustard plant begin life from a seed, their seeds contain vastly different genetic structures, which determine their growth either into a mustard plant or a woody tree with branches.

Therefore, the Lord is describing, by means of analogy with the plant kingdom, the grotesque, abnormal, aberrant growth of His humble, lowly Kingdom on earth. This new Kingdom is not the Kingdom of Christ. Christ's kingdom will never grow into that which it was never intended. Rather it is the Kingdom of Satan, who has mimicked Christ's Kingdom, creating a comfortable home for his innumerable demon spirits. Satan planted, Antichrist watered, but God gave the increase, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Rebecca replies, "Look, it doesn't say, "the Kindgdom of heaven has some leaven in it", it says, "the Kingdom of heaven IS like unto leaven." How could the leaven possibly be taken as an evil there? Why doesn't it say "the kingdom of Satan is like unto leaven?"

I respond: As I stated earlier, Christ Himself explains that by using Parables, He purposefully hides their meaning from those whose pride and arrogance renders them deaf and blind. The nature of a Parable is to "place one thing by the side of another; to compare with another in likeness, similitude." [Thayer]. Besides, had Christ spoken any plainer, He would still be disbelieved. Please review Luke 4:16-30, where Christ plainly tells the Jews He is the fulfillment of the Isaiah 61 prophecy. Moments afterward the congregation sought to kill Him.

Rebecca continues, "What's more, you missed the point of my argument, which was simply that simply because a word is used in one place in the context of something evil does not imply that it cannot possibly be used in the context of good."

I respond: On the contrary, as a student of the Word I checked the validity of your example which presented leaven in the Kingdom of Heaven as a good thing. I found not one instance of it being good in the NT. The OT teaching on leaven is equally opposed to your interpretation. Therefore, you have no biblical warrant to use leaven in the context that you did. I am sure, however, you had no intention to countermand the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit by adding your own private interpretation.

Rebecca adds, "Oh, and about Scriptures--if you were to attend Mass daily, you would hear pracically the entire Bible read, in the three year cycle of the Church."

I respond: Please tell me the day and time II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 & 17 are read. I would very much like to attend!

Robert Suther, one of the few who fearlessly identifies himself, gives a mini-history of how the Canon of Scripture was formulated, and concludes by stating: " So Mr. Windburn, if it wasn't for those Catholic Bishops and a Catholic Pope (you know, Mr. Windburn, those very same guys who have that so-called "mark of the beast" on their souls...according to you) decaring that the Book of Revelation is inspired, then you wouldn't have that very book of Revelation in which you use to attack the very people who declared that that book was inspired.....of course, the Holy Spirit guided these men into declaring that the Book of Revelation was inspired; but always remember, it was Catholic Bishops (and a humble priest/St. Jerome) who formulated the Canon and listed which books are inspired....I SAY AGAIN: ESPECIALLY THE BOOK OF REVELATION - THE SAME BOOK YOU USE TO ATTACK CHRIST'S CHURCH AND CHRIST'S APOSTOLIC BISHOPS."

I respond: First, it is important to note that the early Roman Catholic Church differed in people, deeds and doctrine from the latter day Roman Catholic Church. We cannot equate 1^st - 5^th century Roman Catholicism with Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages, for example. The early Roman Church had simply not yet grown into the evil entity which had been prophesied to occur. Remember the Parable of the Mustard Seed? It takes time to grow from a seed into a tree strong enough to be home to the birds of the air. By reading the early Church Fathers we can, however, perceive the seed bed of error to have already been sown. In point of fact, it was being sown in the days of the Apostles, which is why all the warnings in the Gospels and Epistles.

Second, there is a vast difference between officially agreeing amongst an episcopal body that which is to constitute the Canon of Scripture and that of delivering the original inspired words from God to His Church. The latter guarantees infallibility and sainthood, the former does not. This is why God's true Church is founded on the teachings of the Apostles, (Rev. 22:14), not the episcopal bodies who verified the inspiration of Holy Writ.

Third and not least, the Jews were the keepers of the Hebrew Old Testament from its inception. They translated the Septuagint and denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. They were obsessive in detail not to miss one jot or tittle when copying a manuscript. They wore the Scriptures on their foreheads. They claimed to be orthodox adherents of the Word. Yet these same people murdered the Lord, the very One of whom their Scriptures testified. This is an important lesson for us. Being a keeper of Scripture does not necessitate rightly understanding Scripture. Rightly understanding Scripture is a gift the Lord reserves for His people. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:14).

Lord willing, next time I will answer Leroy, whose patience has run dry like a well without water.