Rev. 2:4 (Christ speaking to the church at Ephesus) <Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou has left thy first love.> I've always been puzzled by this verse. What was the church's "first love," and how did the church leave it? I would presume the first love of any church ought to be Jesus Christ, but I can't quite make that reading stand up in this verse. Any thoughts?

Rev. 2:6 (again to Ephesus) <But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.> We are handicapped by not knowing who the Nicolaitanes were, what they did, or what they believed. But whatever they were, Christ hated their deeds and exhorts the churches to hate their deeds, too.

Rev. 2:14-16 (to Pergamos) <But I have a few things against thee, because thou has there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So has thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.> The Lord hates idolatry and fornication--I think some of our flatline/mainline churches are in big trouble here--and again speaks against the Nicolaitanes, whoever they were. He warns this church to repent, or else.

Rev. 2:20-24 (to the church of Thyatira) <Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest [note the present tense] that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed [a sickbed], and them that commit fornication with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children [her followers?] with death...> The Lord here displays great anger with this false teacher and her followers, again because of idolatry and fornication.

This hardly sounds like "me and Jesus tiptoe through the tulips," does it? It doesn't seem like He is in the habit of "welcoming" everyone and "affirming" everything they do. (The church I grew up in now has a sign outside, advertising it as "a welcoming and affirming congregation.")

I believe that the Bible's teaching to love your enemies does not mean we are also to love God's enemies and accept whatever they say and do. The Old Testament speaks of several otherwise godly individuals, like Jehoshaphat, who incurred God's displeasure by "helping the ungodly"--in Jehoshaphat's case, entering into an alliance with Ahab: which allowed great evil to creep into the kingdom of Judah by mean's of Ahab's kinswoman, Athaliah, the mother of the apostate king, Ahaziah.

I think that most of all, it is a disagreement on terminology. I understand what you are saying, but IMO "limited love" is a very poor and potentially misleading concept.

The Bible defines for us what "love" is -- let's call this "Biblical love". I see no scripture that ever suggests that we should limit *Biblical* love.

I'm sure you'll agree that there are many things that the world calls love which are not Biblical love.

<because thou has left thy first love> - IMO, the "love" referring to here must be the love that the churches were taught to exhibit. This would clearly include love for God, and love for each other, and even (in fact, especially) love for enemies. I often see Christians ridiculed and hated by the world, but I seldom see Christians responding with love and kindness -- and yet that is exactly how scripture tells us to respond.

<But whatever they were, Christ hated their deeds and exhorts the churches to hate their deeds, too.> Okay, but this is not an example of "limiting love" as the Bible defined love. We were never taught to love the *deeds* of the wicked.

The same goes for the other cases (Pergamos & Thyatira) -- Neither are examples of limiting Biblical love. God's hatred for the deeds of the wicked, which we are to also hate, does not contradict the command to love our enemies.

<It doesn't seem like He is in the habit of "welcoming" everyone and "affirming" everything they do.> Of course not! But welcoming everyone and affirming everything was never taught as examples of Biblical love.

<I believe that the Bible's teaching to love your enemies does not mean we are also to love God's enemies and accept whatever they say and do.>

Well, lets separate those things: (1) <love God's enemies> and (2) <accept whatever they say and do>.

(1) Where does the Bible say that we are to identify "God's enemies" and not love them (again, with the Biblical definition of love)?

In one sense, you could argue that all unbelievers are God's enemies. Are we to not love all unbelievers? Certainly the Apostle Paul was once God's enemy, so was John Newton, so was I, and so were countless other sinners who came to Christ -- often in response Christians who loved them despite appearing to be God's enemies.

(2) Of course we don't accept everything they say and do! But how is this an example of "limiting love", where "love" is understood to be Biblical love?

<The Old Testament speaks of several otherwise godly individuals, like Jehoshaphat, who incurred God's displeasure by "helping the ungodly">

Again, "helping the ungodly" is not an example of Biblical love -- and therefore *not* helping the ungodly is not an example of "limited love".

I don't think I am selling them short, nor am I supposing that they are there for no reason.

Previously we saw her as representing idolatry. Also, I mentioned how I think her name, "Babylon" connects her to OT Babylon in two ways: (1) As the origin (or "mother") of other idolatries, and (2) as a metaphor for the idolatrous kingdom of the end times which persecutes the saints.

Again, I think this is one of the strongest metaphors in the Bible. The OT connects Babylon to the end times, and of course the NT does.

Furthermore, you'll find that chapter 18 is mostly a collection of prophetic quotes taken directly from the OT. In every case, those quotes were originally prophesied against OT Babylon. Of course, Revelation 18 certainly can't still be talking about OT Babylon. It must be talking about some future kingdom that parallels OT Babylon, hence the metaphor.

~~~~~

Back when we were comparing the "bride" of chapter 21 with the "prostitute" of chapter 19, one of the things they both had in common was their association with a city. The bride is clearly associated with the new Jerusalem. This is the city where David had his throne -- the earthly throne to which Jesus is the rightful heir.

But what about the city associated with the prostitute? Chapter 17 ends with this:

<18 And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”>

What city could that be? IMO, the only city that could be described that way when John wrote Revelation (note the present tense) is Rome.

Now, a few verses earlier (v15), it also said:

<15 And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages.>

So, while v15 indicates that the influence of the Prostitute is worldwide, this prostitute who represents idolatry is specifically identified with Rome.

I think you can probably see the implications. In the centuries after Revelation was written, Rome did indeed become identified as the center of a major worldwide religion and it remains so to this day. Its leader in Rome is the most recognized human religious leader in the world. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but this religion is very much known for adorning its leaders and artifacts with purple, scarlet, gold and jewels, as mentioned in 17:4.

Now, a few weeks ago you made this comment:

<pgp: It's understandable why some might see those verses of Revelation as applying to the Church of Rome, but I think our interpretation of "Babylon the Great" must be broader than that, by a goodly measure.>

And I agree completely. As I said, I see the prostitute representing idolatry in general. The fact that she is seen sitting on the beast with 7 heads suggests that she was the influential force behind the 7 kingdoms represented by the 7 heads, and so she clearly predates and is more expansive than just the church of Rome.

And yet, John's prophecy must be fulfilled, and in the light of these historical developments, we have a very strong indication that the prophecy points to the church of Rome as the center of idolatry in the end times.

Somehow I think "Babylon=the Roman Catholic Church" is just too easy. The end times aren't here yet, are they? If the RC Church is not *now* the Whore of Revelation, she would have to mutate in various ways to become the real-life embodiment of that prophetic symbol.

Meanwhile, some of the much smaller--but still large, in numbers of members and in historical significance--"mainline" Protestant churches are mutating like crazy, and certainly not for the better! (A matter which will be the subject of my column this Thursday.)

Perhaps the Whore is <all> the churches going bad--minus the Christians in them who continue to persevere in Christ.

But Babylon, in addition to being the font of idolatry, also had a great deal of worldly power, political and economic power. In his day, Nebuchadnezzar could easily stand as a symbol of the world order. Who could stand up to him? His Babylon wasn't just a (false) religious force, but the leading secular power of its time (if you'll pardon the anachronism--there was no such thing as a purely secular order in those days).

A real end-times equivalent of ancient Babylon would combine both religious and secular power--which I think puts the RC Church out of the running, except as part of something larger.

<Somehow I think "Babylon=the Roman Catholic Church" is just too easy.>

Well, that's not what I claimed. The prostitute (which represents idolatry) goes beyond the RCC in time and extent. However, I believe the end times will be characterized by false religion (i.e. idolatry), and in some way the leading force of false religion will be in Rome.

BTW, I'm not saying that all false religions will unite into one religion (e.g. Catholicism) either, except that they will be generally united against true Christianity, with the RCC being in the best position to create confusion (or deception) about what true Christianity is.

<pgp: The end times aren't here yet, are they? If the RC Church is not *now* the Whore of Revelation, she would have to mutate in various ways to become the real-life embodiment of that prophetic symbol.>

I don't think the RCC has to mutate much at all in order to be the focal point of a deceptive form of idolatry.

<Meanwhile, some of the much smaller--but still large, in numbers of members and in historical significance--"mainline" Protestant churches are mutating like crazy, and certainly not for the better! (A matter which will be the subject of my column this Thursday.)

Perhaps the Whore is <all> the churches going bad--minus the Christians in them who continue to persevere in Christ.>

In a sense, yes. The nature of the false religion in the end times would be a good topic for later.

<But Babylon, in addition to being the font of idolatry, also had a great deal of worldly power, political and economic power. In his day, Nebuchadnezzar could easily stand as a symbol of the world order. Who could stand up to him? His Babylon wasn't just a (false) religious force, but the leading secular power of its time (if you'll pardon the anachronism--there was no such thing as a purely secular order in those days).

A real end-times equivalent of ancient Babylon would combine both religious and secular power--which I think puts the RC Church out of the running, except as part of something larger.>

I agree! As I've been saying, Revelation is using Babylon as a metaphor for a future "kingdom", and this kingdom embodies both the false religious force that motivates the persecution of the saints, as well as the political power to carry it out. I believe the antichrist will be the most influential political leader in this kingdom, and IMO, a Pope is the most likely candidate to be the religious leader -- the "other beast" and "false prophet" introduced in chapter 13.

Half my family is Protestant, half is Catholic, with clergy in both camps. Often that results in family feuds; but my generation was brought up to love and respect both sides. Maybe that's why I'm highly averse to casting any future pope as Antichrist.

You and I discussed this briefly, long ago--Is Antichrist a specific person, or is Antichrist an institution, a movement, or a world-view? Why does Revelation assign to the Beast the number 666? Does that designate a specific individual, or something quite different?

I've never been able to decide, either way. Paul speaks of a "Wicked one" who will be revealed (II Thessalonians 2:8), while John speaks of a "spirit of antichrist" which is already in the world (I John 4:3).

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "hung its hat". If you mean "has some features that are remnants of paganism", then yes.

This would include steeples, Dec 25 Christmas, Christmas trees, "Easter", and a bunch of other things. IMO, these are non-doctrinal matters that right-minded Christians need not worry about.

I think Paul addressed such matters when he discussed eating meat sacrificed to idols. He explained that it's perfectly okay for believers who understand that the idol is really nothing. In the same way, Christian who understand that these pagan remnants are nothing need not be bothered by them. Just because something was associated with paganism doesn't mean that using it constitutes paganism.

However, I think you would be wrong to say that the RCC pagan traditions of the RCC may be dismissed as non-doctrinal matters. The pagan traditions of the RCC go deep into it's theology.

<pgp: Half my family is Protestant, half is Catholic, with clergy in both camps. Often that results in family feuds; but my generation was brought up to love and respect both sides. Maybe that's why I'm highly averse to casting any future pope as Antichrist.>

Maybe so. I notice that in this forum you have objected strongly to Protestant churches that engage in goddess worship -- and rightly so. Do you apply the same criteria to the RCC?

Suppose you visit a church where you see this:

-- The pastor bows before a statue in the image of a woman, and consecrated his life and the world to her. He refers to her as the "queen of heaven" and "queen of the universe" and the "co-redemptrix with Christ".

-- Then the pastor prays: "O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume!" ... "Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around your altars: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! You are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people! Amen."

-- Then he explains to the congregation: "When Christians of all times and places turn to Mary, they are acting on the spontaneous conviction that Jesus cannot refuse his mother what she asks; and they are relying on the unshakable trust that Mary is also our mother -- a mother who has experienced the greatest of all sorrows, who feels all our griefs with us and ponders in a maternal way how to overcome them."

Wouldn't you think that this church is deep into idolatry and goddess worship?

And yet all of these statements have been made by *Popes* -- not offbeat fringe nuts, mind you, but the men holding the highest office and speaking with the supreme authority of the Catholic church!

-- Also suppose at this church you're visiting, you notice huge depiction of the woman sitting on the Ark of the Covenant between the Cherubim.

Would you not think they are placing her in the position of God? Well, here she is: http://marian.org/divinemercy/story... - St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church in Chicago.

-- In this church you see all sorts of other unbiblical doctrines and practices. A hierarchy of priests where the high priest has the title "Pontifex Maximus", orders of virgins, purgatory, eating wafers, selling indulgences.

I think you would see these "unbiblical traditions" as going far beyond "non-doctrinal matters" no?

-- Finally, you see women bringing cakes to offer to this "queen of heaven", as commonly practiced in the RCC.

Would it not remind you of Jer 7: <17 Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.>

In other words, these are exactly the sort of things that provoked God to send Babylon to chastise Israel. Revelation is telling us that in the future, it will be Babylon happening all over again, only this time, instead of the largely apostate Israel being chastised, it will the largely apostate church. IMO, the RCC will be leading the apostasy.

In my opinion, the Bible is pretty clear that we can expect a real individual to fill the role of antichrist.

Also, each of the previous 7 Satanically inspired kingdoms (represented by the 7 heads) had a real human king, and there's no reason to think that the eighth kingdom mentioned in Rev 17 will be different.

<I've never been able to decide, either way. Paul speaks of a "Wicked one" who will be revealed (II Thessalonians 2:8), while John speaks of a "spirit of antichrist" which is already in the world (I John 4:3). >

IMO the Bible speaks of 3 different (but related) things: (1) "The Antichrist", and (2)"The Spirit of antichrist", and (3) "antichrists".

(1) The Antichrist: The ruler prophesied (the "little horn") in Dan 7 and elsewhere.

(2) Spririt of Antichrist: The spiritual influence at work through the antichrist, i.e. Satan.

(3) antichrists: Supposed representatives of God who are in fact false prophets -- these are influenced by the same Spriritual influence mentioned above.

~~~~~

Regarding the RCC, I'll again say that I don't think all Catholics are apostate. I'm sure many attach little or no importance to the unbiblical traditions and so it doesn't interfere with their knowledge of the truth and their relationship with God.

<Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "hung its hat". If you mean "has some features that are remnants of paganism", then yes.

This would include steeples, Dec 25 Christmas, Christmas trees, "Easter", and a bunch of other things. >

How do things stack up for my church? No steeple(though I think a really mild inclusion on the list), nothing special done on Christmas, no Christmas tree, we do have Easter egg hunts which I don't care for, but no particular notice of Easter.

<IMO, these are non-doctrinal matters that right-minded Christians need not worry about. >

They aren't especially important IMO, though the little foxes spoil the vine

<I think Paul addressed such matters when he discussed eating meat sacrificed to idols. He explained that it's perfectly okay for believers who understand that the idol is really nothing. In the same way, Christian who understand that these pagan remnants are nothing need not be bothered by them. Just because something was associated with paganism doesn't mean that using it constitutes paganism.>

Well, thanks for that. I'm sure you know that if we had to run away from everything that was once associated with paganism we would practically have to leave the world.

For example, must Christians refrain from calling days by the normal names "Monday", "Tuesday", ...? "Thor's day"?

It seems that a line of reason must be drawn somewhere, and thankfully, Paul provides one.

<playground player> I know that you don't really defend the unbiblical aspects of the RCC, although you had me concerned a while back when you said:

<The Catholic Church is just another Christian church that's getting hammered on the outside and corrupted on the inside, these days.>

http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon...

I do see <YouRang's> point in wondering how I can condemn this sort of thing while remaining silent about Mariolatry.

I've long been interested in the history of Mariolatry, and still can't pinpoint its origins. We certainly don't find it anywhere in the New Testament. Among the earliest references I've been able to discover, as to what we might call "popular Marianism," is a comment in <Nennius> (c. A.D. 700 or 800) to the effect that King Arthur bore an image of Mary on his shield at the battle of Badon (500 A.D.). If I knew my Church history better, I'm sure I could trace it back a century or two farther than that. But surely the doctrine would have been totally alien to the Apostles themselves!

<YouRang> There is a very great deal of toxic heresy infecting the Protestant churches this day, and it can't be blamed on the Roman Church. It's coming straight out of the Protestant seminaries.

Over the years, I have interviewed a number of seminary presidents, denominational officials, and even some of the neo-pagan "clergy" themselves. It has given me an appreciation for how deeply tainted these churches are.

That's why I tend to see the Great Whore as symbolizing virtually *all* the churches. Maybe Rome will be at the head of them. Maybe they'll all merge in a last great spasm of faux ecumenism. Who knows?

But if your interpretation is right (and I'm not saying that it isn't), and the Antichrist is a real person, a specific individual, then he will surely head up a worldly political power of some kind--and, without a shadow of a doubt, he will enjoy the full and enthusiastic support of all the smartest people in the world.

Sure. While I do think Revelation does point to Rome (and the RCC by implication) as the leading force behind apostasy in the end times, it certainly won't be the only false religion, or even the only false variant of Christianity.

As I said a few days back: <I'm not saying that all false religions will unite into one religion (e.g. Catholicism) either, except that they will be generally united against true Christianity, with the RCC being in the best position to create confusion (or deception) about what true Christianity is.>

And I do think that a Pope is by far the most likely candidate to fill the role of "false prophet" (not antichrist) foretold in Revelation 13 & 19.

<Over the years, I have interviewed a number of seminary presidents, denominational officials, and even some of the neo-pagan "clergy" themselves. It has given me an appreciation for how deeply tainted these churches are.

That's why I tend to see the Great Whore as symbolizing virtually *all* the churches.>

Well, I'm not sure about *all* churches. The messages to the churches in Rev chapters 2 & 3 did mention two of the seven churches (Smyrna and Philadelphia) that received no rebuke at all. It gives me hope that there are still some faithful and doctrinally sound churches that will persevere, just as there were some Israelites who remained faithful during the Babylonian captivity (most notably, Daniel & his friends).

<Maybe Rome will be at the head of them. Maybe they'll all merge in a last great spasm of faux ecumenism. Who knows?>

As for ecumenism, I suppose you know that the RCC has been pushing the ecumenical movement for many years? The RCC has also been making strong overtures to other religions, e.g. Buddhism and Islam.

<But if your interpretation is right (and I'm not saying that it isn't), and the Antichrist is a real person, a specific individual, then he will surely head up a worldly political power of some kind--and, without a shadow of a doubt, he will enjoy the full and enthusiastic support of all the smartest people in the world.>

Yes, the Pope does seem to be rather cozy with the Dalai Lama, these days. But then there are Protestant churches in Kansas (!) where you can hear Buddhist chants performed as part of a supposedly Christian service.

When I say "virtually all" of the churches are corrupting themselves, I don't mean to ignore the fact that all of these denominations continue to include true Christian believers who are trying--and not succeeding--to keep their churches Christian.

I had to look that one up. Another day, another silly cult. As L. Ron Hubbard said (and demonstrated himself), "If you want to get rich, you start a religion". Apparently, he is an inspriation to others.

<Yes, the Pope does seem to be rather cozy with the Dalai Lama, these days. But then there are Protestant churches in Kansas (!) where you can hear Buddhist chants performed as part of a supposedly Christian service.>

Sure. You will not have difficulty finding Protestant churches (if that title means anything anymore) that have decided that the whims and feelings of humans can overrule scripture. However, I still wouldn't say that this is *characteristic* of Protestant churches.

The RCC and its Popes are another story. They have been evolving their doctrine based on human decrees for centuries. Typically, these decrees have nothing to do with scripture, but they manage to find some way to force the Bible to say what they want.

For example, the "Assumption of Mary" became Catholic dogma in 1950 because Pope Pius XII said so. Pope John Paul II somehow squeezes this into John 14:3 <And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am> by saying that "Mary is the 'pledge' of the fulfillment of Christ's promise".

And whatever a human Pope says, no matter how bizarre or unscriptural it may be, it can never be dismissed as some deviant variation of the genuine RC faith. He *defines* the RC faith.

<So... Do you think we have actually entered the End Times? I guess that's where the rubber meets the road.>

No. That is, I don't see any reason to think that the 7-year period that I call the "end times" has begun. However, as far as I'm concerned, the last things that needed to happen before the end times have occurred:

- If I'm right Hitler's regime, then the prophecy of the 7th kingdom has been fulfilled, leaving only the 8th (antichrist's) kingdom.

- Israel (as a result of the 7th kingdom) has regained their homeland, and (as prophecy would suggest) the opposition to Israel being in that land has been growing.

- The Roman Catholic Church seems to be an exceedingly good fulfillment of the prophecy that the center of idolatry would be in Rome, and it's relatively recent efforts to reconcile with Protestant churches and make nice with other relgions also fits the bill.