One of the most dangerous and blasphemous doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church is the claim that its priests have the power to forgive sins. This assertion not only contradicts the Bible but also places the entire Catholic Church in direct opposition to God’s Word, making them deceivers and servants of darkness rather than of Christ. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church has gone beyond just claiming to absolve sin—it has added commandments and traditions that directly contradict God’s law, placing itself above the authority of Scripture.
The Bible is explicit that only God can forgive sins. This is seen throughout Scripture, yet the Catholic Church insists that its priests possess the power to absolve sin. 1 John 1:10 states that if we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
By claiming the ability to forgive sins, Catholic priests deny their own sinfulness and, in doing so, call God a liar. They position themselves as sinless mediators between God and man—an office that Scripture only grants to Jesus Christ Himself.
Moreover, John 3:6 declares that whosoever abideth in him sinneth not.
If a priest is abiding in Christ, he would not take upon himself an authority that belongs to God alone. By falsely claiming such authority, he does not abide in Christ.
And again, 1 John 3:8 warns that he that committeth sin is of the devil.
The very act of a priest claiming to forgive sins is a grievous sin because it usurps God's role. Since this claim makes God a liar, these priests are committing blasphemy and aligning themselves with Satan, not Christ.
God's commandments are unchanging, and His Word is clear that no one is to add or remove from them. Yet, the Catholic Church has continuously altered and added to the commandments, teaching doctrines that are not found in Scripture and are in direct defiance of God's law.
One of the most glaring examples is the rejection of the true Sabbath and the establishment of Sunday worship. The Bible clearly states that the seventh day, the Sabbath, is to be kept holy, yet the Catholic Church has changed this and openly admits to doing so. Christ Himself kept the Sabbath, and as prophesied, He rose on the Sabbath. If He had risen on Sunday, it would contradict His own prophecy about being in the grave for three days and three nights, Matthew 12:40, making it four days and three nights instead.
The Catholic Church has also added confession to a priest as a requirement for forgiveness, despite the Bible teaching that forgiveness comes directly from God, 1 John 1:9. Other additions include the veneration of saints, the worship of Mary, and the creation of doctrines that have no biblical foundation.
By adding these commandments, the Catholic Church proves that it does not abide by God’s law but seeks to create its own. If they truly followed Christ, they would uphold His commandments rather than invent new ones that contradict Scripture.
Jesus made it clear that love is evidenced by obedience to God's commandments. This is affirmed in 2 John 1:5-6 which states "And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it."
Love is not an abstract concept but is shown through obedience to God's laws. The Catholic Church does not obey God's commandments but instead falsely claims the power to absolve sins, thus blaspheming God, has a long history of waging wars and persecuting those who stood for Biblical truth, rejects the true Sabbath, instituting Sunday worship in defiance of God's law, and creates new commandments that were never given by God but by man.
By breaking these commandments, the Catholic Church proves that it does not love Christ. If it truly loved Him, it would obey His Word, not invent doctrines that contradict it.
2 John 1:7 warns "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
The Roman Catholic Church presents itself as the representative of Christ on earth, yet its actions prove otherwise. If Rome truly believed in Christ as God incarnate, it would obey His commandments. Instead, it creates new ones, despite clear Biblical evidence that Christ followed God's original law without alteration.
By promoting false doctrines like Sunday worship, priestly absolution, and other man-made traditions, Rome reveals itself as one of the deceivers John warns about.
The idea that a human priest can absolve another person’s sins is not only blasphemous but also illogical. Matthew 15:14 states "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
A sinful man cannot cleanse another sinner. Only a sinless being can grant true forgiveness, and that is Christ alone. The Catholic priesthood, by claiming to absolve sins, denies its own sinfulness—which means, according to 1 John 1:10, they are calling God a liar.
If they were truly followers of Christ, they would teach what Scripture says about repentance: direct confession to God (1 John 1:9). Instead, they create an ungodly system of priestly intercession that contradicts the role of Jesus as our only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).
Ironically, the apostle Peter himself refutes false teachers who deny God’s past judgments and warns of the coming fire judgment, as recorded in 2 Peter 3:7 "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
Peter speaks of skeptics who are not merely unaware of God's creation but are deliberately ignoring it. They do not lack knowledge but choose deception over truth. This description perfectly fits the Roman Catholic Church, whose leaders, including the popes, openly advocate for evolution and deny the literal six-day creation account presented in Scripture. Instead of upholding God’s unchanging truth, they prefer man's flawed philosophies, aligning themselves with the same Rome that altered God's calendar and laws.
The Roman Catholic Church, which claims Peter as its first pope, blatantly disregards the very truths Peter defended. When a pope promotes evolution, he denies that God created the heavens and the earth by His Word, instantly and supernaturally, just as Peter himself affirms in 2 Peter 3:5-6 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
Furthermore, popes, in their endorsement of evolution, contradict the very apostle they claim to succeed. Peter, in referencing Genesis 1:1, affirmed that God spoke creation into existence by His word, not through a gradual evolutionary process. By acknowledging evolution as a valid scientific theory while insisting on God's role in the creation of the soul, popes are introducing doctrines that were never part of the apostolic teachings. If God explicitly forbade the addition of new commandments, then what exactly are the popes passing down from the apostles if they are redefining the origins of life?
Throughout history, several popes have spoken positively about evolution, always maintaining that God is the ultimate creator and that the human soul is not a product of evolution. However, this stance still diverges from the biblical account upheld by Peter.
Pope Pius XII, in 1950, was the first to formally address evolution in his encyclical Humani Generis. He permitted the possibility that the human body evolved, as long as Catholics maintained that the soul was directly created by God. However, he warned against accepting evolution uncritically and insisted that Adam and Eve must be regarded as real historical figures. This cautious allowance marked a shift from previous Catholic teachings, where creation was understood as a direct act of God.
Pope John Paul II in 1996 further endorsed evolution, stating that it is "more than a hypothesis," acknowledging its strong scientific basis. While reaffirming that faith and evolution are not necessarily in conflict, he maintained that any theory removing God from the process was unacceptable. This further blurred the distinction between biblical creation and human reinterpretation of origins.
Pope Benedict XVI, serving from 2005 to 2013, approached the issue with caution, emphasizing that divine intelligence must be recognized in creation. He acknowledged evolution but stated that it cannot explain human consciousness, morality, or the soul. His rejection of atheistic evolution showed a continued effort to balance scientific theories with faith, but it still departed from the Genesis account upheld by Peter and the apostles.
Pope Francis, in 2014, declared that evolution and the Big Bang theory do not contradict divine creation but rather require it. He argued against the image of God as a magician creating instantaneously, suggesting instead that God set creation in motion through natural laws. While affirming that humans have a unique spiritual soul given by God, his statements followed the gradual trajectory set by his predecessors in embracing evolution as part of Catholic doctrine.
This directly opposes the teachings of the Apostle Peter, particularly in 2 Peter 3:5-6. Peter explicitly states that the world was created by the word of God, not through gradual evolutionary processes. He warns that those who deny this truth are willingly ignorant, deliberately rejecting the reality of divine creation. This stark contrast reveals a profound theological divide between the biblical foundation laid by Peter and the modern reinterpretation advanced by Pope Francis.
Peter’s affirmation of creation aligns with the Genesis account, where God speaks and creation instantly comes into existence. The phrase "by the word of God" signifies divine authority, not natural processes, and reinforces the belief that God’s creative power is immediate and absolute. Pope Francis, however, suggests that creation unfolded through natural evolutionary laws over vast periods of time, implying that God set things in motion rather than speaking them into immediate existence. This belief erodes the biblical doctrine of creation as an instantaneous act and instead introduces a framework that aligns with secular humanism and scientific speculation rather than divine revelation.
By embracing evolution, Pope Francis is inadvertently redefining the nature of God’s role in creation. In Scripture, God is portrayed as sovereign, commanding all things into being with absolute authority. The idea that God created through a gradual process diminishes the supernatural nature of His power. This is in direct opposition to Peter’s teaching, which warns against those who suppress the truth of creation. Evolutionary theory, in contrast, suggests that life emerged through an unguided process of natural selection and chance mutations, a concept wholly absent from the biblical text. Francis’ endorsement of such a view raises the question of whether he believes in the literal accuracy of Scripture or whether he is attempting to reconcile Christianity with modern scientific paradigms, even at the expense of foundational biblical truths.
Another major contradiction arises when considering Peter’s emphasis on the flood as a divine judgment upon a world that had become corrupt. In 2 Peter 3:6, he references the great flood as an event that reshaped the world and stands as a testament to God’s direct intervention in human history. The flood narrative supports a literal interpretation of Genesis, affirming that God’s actions are decisive and miraculous. Evolution, however, operates on an entirely different framework, one that does not allow for divine intervention in the natural order. By endorsing evolution, Pope Francis aligns himself with a worldview that denies the global flood and instead promotes a slow, uniformitarian process of change over millions of years. This directly undermines Peter’s warning that in the last days, people would reject the historical reality of God’s past judgments and scoff at His power.
The implications of Pope Francis' stance extend beyond just creation. His rejection of the image of God as a magician who creates instantaneously calls into question the reliability of biblical revelation itself. If Genesis is to be reinterpreted as an allegory rather than a historical account, then by extension, many other supernatural events recorded in Scripture—such as the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ—can also be dismissed as metaphorical rather than literal. This approach undermines the authority of Scripture and introduces a dangerous precedent where human reasoning is placed above divine revelation.
Additionally, Pope Francis' acceptance of evolution fundamentally alters the theological understanding of sin and salvation. If humans evolved gradually rather than being created in God’s image from the beginning, then the doctrine of original sin becomes problematic. The Bible teaches that sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience, necessitating Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. If Adam is reduced to a figurative or symbolic figure, the entire framework of salvation collapses. Peter upholds the reality of sin’s entrance into the world and its consequences, whereas Francis’ position, by supporting evolutionary origins, inadvertently diminishes the necessity of Christ’s atonement.
It appears this was the intention from the start, considering the insistence on re-enacting the once-for-all sacrifice. Either they have neglected to read the very Scriptures they claim to uphold or they are deliberate agents of the devil himself. Without a doubt, something deeply sinister is being gradually introduced.
Pope Francis’ alignment with scientific theories over biblical revelation also raises serious concerns about the nature of truth within Catholic doctrine. If the Church can alter its stance on fundamental issues like creation, then what prevents further reinterpretations of biblical doctrines in the future? Peter’s writings warn of false teachers who would come and distort the truth, leading many away from the simplicity of God’s word. Francis’ endorsement of evolution fits within this warning, as it replaces divine revelation with human philosophy, leading countless believers to question the inerrancy of Scripture.
Ultimately, Pope Francis’ stance on evolution and the Big Bang theory does not merely reflect a different interpretation of Genesis; it represents a departure from the authority of Scripture itself. By rejecting the clear biblical teaching of direct creation, he aligns himself with a worldview that undermines faith in the supernatural power of God. Peter’s message in 2 Peter 3 serves as a prophetic warning against such deception. Those who seek to follow God’s word faithfully must recognize the contradiction between Peter’s unambiguous declaration of creation by divine command and Pope Francis’ attempt to merge biblical faith with secular science. This is not just a difference of opinion—it is a direct challenge to the integrity of biblical truth.
What, then, is he truly passing down when he asserts apostolic succession?
The undeniable trend within the Roman Catholic Church is a movement toward accepting evolution as compatible with faith, despite its contradiction to the biblical creation account. Popes from Pius XII to Francis have increasingly acknowledged evolution, all while maintaining that God is the ultimate cause. However, this raises fundamental theological questions. If Peter, whom they claim as their foundation, affirmed a literal creation by God's spoken word, how can his supposed successors promote a theory that undermines this truth? If the doctrine of apostolic succession is based on faithfully passing down what the apostles taught, then by redefining the origins of life, the Catholic Church deviates from that claim. How, then, can it legitimately claim to be the true church?
This shift also calls into question essential Christian doctrines. If evolution is accepted, how does that affect the understanding of Adam and Eve as historical figures? If they were not literal individuals, then what does that mean for the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of Christ’s redemption? These are not minor adjustments but fundamental changes that alter the framework of biblical theology.
The Catholic Church’s gradual adoption of evolution is not simply about harmonizing science with faith. It represents an implicit departure from the clear teachings of Genesis and the confirmation of those teachings by Peter. If popes continue to reinterpret creation rather than uphold the Word of God as it was given, then they are not acting as successors of Peter but as leaders introducing new commandments contrary to divine instruction. This ultimately undermines the very foundation they claim to uphold.
In traditional Christian doctrine, Adam and Eve are presented as the first humans, uniquely created by God in His image. Their existence is central to the biblical narrative, not just as the first human beings but as the originators of sin. According to Genesis, they disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, bringing sin and death into the world. This event is foundational because it establishes the need for salvation, a theme that runs throughout Scripture and culminates in Jesus Christ.
However, if evolution is accepted, it suggests that humans emerged gradually through a long, naturalistic process. This directly challenges the idea that there was a single first pair of humans from whom all people descended. If Adam and Eve were not real individuals, then original sin as traditionally understood becomes problematic. The Bible teaches that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, as explicitly stated in Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." If Adam never existed as a historical person, then how did sin enter humanity?
The theological implications are immense. If sin did not originate from a real Adam, then what is the basis for the fallen nature of mankind? Without a clear moment in which sin corrupted humanity, the entire structure of Christian redemption begins to unravel. Jesus is frequently referred to as the "second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), coming to undo the damage caused by the first Adam’s fall. If the first Adam is symbolic or non-existent, what does that mean for the second Adam? Did Jesus die to correct a metaphor? This perspective would severely weaken the doctrine of atonement.
Additionally, the rejection of Adam and Eve as historical figures creates a ripple effect that undermines the authority of Scripture. The genealogies of the Bible, such as those found in Genesis 5 and Luke 3, treat Adam as a real person. If Adam is mythical or allegorical, then what about his descendants? At what point do the biblical genealogies transition from myth to history? If early biblical figures such as Adam, Seth, and Noah are dismissed as figurative, then at what point can we be certain of the historical reality of figures like Abraham, Moses, or even Jesus? The erosion of biblical historicity in one area naturally leads to skepticism in others.
Furthermore, the acceptance of evolution shifts the understanding of death in Christian theology. The Bible teaches that death entered the world as a result of sin (Romans 6:23). If evolution is true, then death was not a consequence of sin but a necessary mechanism for life to develop. This contradicts the biblical assertion that death is an enemy, an unnatural intrusion into God’s creation that Jesus came to defeat. Evolution portrays death as an inherent and beneficial force, while the Bible treats it as a curse to be overcome.
The implications extend beyond theology into how one views the nature of divine revelation. If evolutionary theory leads one to reinterpret Genesis as purely allegorical, then what stops the rest of Scripture from being reinterpreted in a similar way? Once biblical authority is undermined in one area, it opens the door for reinterpreting other essential doctrines in ways that deviate from their original meaning.
The logical conclusion of accepting evolution within a Christian framework is that it forces a reinterpretation of the entire biblical narrative (Perhaps that has been the plan all along, orchestrated by the false prophet, the man of sin, and the servant of darkness?)
It does not simply adjust minor theological details; it redefines the very foundation of Christian belief. If Adam and Eve were not real, then sin loses its clear point of entry into humanity. If sin is redefined, then salvation becomes ambiguous. If salvation is ambiguous, then the necessity of Christ’s redemptive work is called into question. These are not small compromises but existential threats to the coherence of Christian theology.
In the end, this issue is not simply about whether one can reconcile evolution with faith but whether doing so fundamentally changes the faith itself. A Christian who accepts evolution must answer difficult questions about the historicity of Adam, the origin of sin, the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice, and the nature of biblical authority. These are not abstract theological debates but essential elements that shape the entire Christian worldview. If one is willing to reinterpret Genesis in light of modern scientific theories, one must be prepared to address the cascading effects that such reinterpretation has on the entire structure of biblical truth.
Revelation 13 is a pivotal chapter for grasping the identity, origins, authority, and influence of the beast power. A thorough verse-by-verse examination provides strong evidence that the papacy aligns with the description of the beast, gaining its power from Satan and misleading the world through deceptive doctrines and illegitimate authority.
Revelation 13:1-2 states that a beast rises out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, upon which are ten crowns and names of blasphemy. This beast bears characteristics of a leopard, a bear, and a lion, drawing directly from Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7, where the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. The transition from pagan Rome to papal Rome is undeniable, as the papacy took over the political and religious influence once held by the emperors. The dragon, which is Satan (Lucifer), gives this beast its power, its seat, and its great authority. The Catholic Church openly admits that it holds temporal and spiritual power, exerting influence over nations, kings, and leaders. Throughout history, popes have claimed divine prerogatives, setting themselves above kings and emperors, proving that this entity operates under satanic influence.
Revelation 13:3 describes a deadly wound that was healed, causing the whole world to wonder after the beast. This wound refers to the events of 1798 when Napoleon’s general, Berthier, took Pope Pius VI captive, effectively ending papal political power. However, the wound was healed when Mussolini restored Vatican City as an independent state in 1929, bringing the papacy back into global influence. Today, the papacy enjoys worldwide recognition and admiration, fulfilling the prophecy that all the world wondered after the beast. Its power is now greater than ever, not merely political but deeply spiritual, influencing billions through its false doctrines and ecumenical movements.
Revelation 13:4 declares that people worship the dragon who gives power to the beast and that they worship the beast itself, saying, "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" By enforcing unbiblical doctrines such as Sunday worship, the papacy leads people away from true obedience to God’s commandments. The entire world sings to Rome’s hymn sheet, adhering to its traditions rather than God’s law. The calendar that governs daily life is a Roman construct, a Gregorian revision, shifting God’s ordained times. The seven-day week, originally set with the Sabbath as the seventh day, has been altered in practice, with Sunday placed at the center of worship. The laws that shape nations are influenced by Rome’s legal traditions, making the world unknowingly subject to the beast’s authority.
Revelation 13:5-6 describes the beast as speaking great things and blasphemies, continuing for forty-two months. In biblical prophecy, a month represents 30 days, and 42 months equates to 1,260 days, which in prophetic time equals 1,260 years. This aligns precisely with the period from 538 AD, when the papacy gained control, to 1798 AD, when the pope was taken captive. The beast blasphemes by claiming to hold the authority of Christ on earth, taking the title "Vicar of Christ," which suggests a role only belonging to Jesus. Popes have also been called "Holy Father," a title Jesus reserved for God alone. The doctrine of confession, where priests claim to absolve sins, further fulfills this prophecy, as Scripture declares that only God can forgive sins.
Revelation 13:7 states that the beast will make war with the saints and overcome them. History records the persecution of millions during the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church executed those who rejected its authority, fulfilling this prophecy exactly as written. Those who held to Scripture, refusing to bow to Rome’s decrees, were hunted down and killed. The Waldensians, the Albigensians, and countless reformers were burned at the stake, tortured, and slaughtered for daring to hold the Bible above church tradition.
Revelation 13:8 warns that all who dwell on the earth shall worship the beast, except those written in the Lamb’s book of life. This indicates a universal system of false worship, one that Rome has long sought to establish. Sunday worship, a direct violation of God’s fourth commandment, has been promoted by the papacy as a mark of its authority. The entire world has been deceived into observing a day that God never sanctified. The worship of the sun god, historically linked to Lucifer, remains embedded in modern religious practices. From Christmas celebrations rooted in pagan festivals to Easter traditions linked to fertility worship, Rome has infused pagan elements into Christianity, corrupting the pure worship of God.
Revelation 13:11-12 introduces another beast, one rising from the earth, having two horns like a lamb but speaking as a dragon. This represents a power that starts with Christian principles but later enforces the dictates of the first beast. The United States, founded on religious liberty, has increasingly aligned itself with Rome, both politically and spiritually. Its influence over global affairs and its role in enforcing universal policies further cements the prophetic narrative.
Revelation 13:16-17 describes the mark of the beast, stating that no one may buy or sell without it. The Catholic Church openly claims that its change of the Sabbath to Sunday is its mark of authority. When Sunday laws become enforced, compelling worship on a day that God never sanctified, those who submit to it will have accepted the beast’s mark. The hand and forehead symbolism represents both action and belief. Those who obey Sunday laws with full knowledge reject God's true Sabbath, while those who conform for convenience still participate in the beast’s system.
The entire world is under the influence of the sun god, Lucifer. The deception runs deep, from the alteration of God’s times and laws to the infiltration of pagan doctrines into Christianity. Rome’s authority has shaped global worship, legal systems, and even the way people measure time. Those who stand for God’s commandments will face persecution, just as the saints before them did.
Revelation 13 provides overwhelming evidence that the papacy is the beast given power by Satan. Its historical actions—persecution of believers, changing God’s times and laws, claiming divine authority, and deceiving nations—align perfectly with John’s vision. The warning in Revelation is clear: those who remain faithful to God must reject the false system of worship and obey His commandments. The deception has been vast, but Scripture provides the truth for those willing to see it. The final test is coming, and the choice remains—follow the beast and its traditions or stand with Christ and His unchanging word.
Comments