Martin Richling: Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor and Divisive “Heretic” Par Excellance: Update I
Posted by EJP on Oct 28th, 2011
In finalizing my exposure of Martin Richling as the divisive heretic that he is, who, I suspect is secretly working for the Jesuit Papacy, I must first premise this article with an apology. It was me who recommended this man having befriended me in the past. It was me who ASSUMED (making an ASS out of ME) that he was sound in the faith and therefore recommended my supporters, friends, brethren and church members to be instructed at his website. You have my deepest apologies and God has this confession of sin as per I John 1:9. All of this damage inflicted by heretic Martin Richling is MY FAULT and I am truly sorry!
Now, to the foremost doctrines of this notable heretic, Martin Richling (hereinafter, “MR”). This is a succinct summation of points taken from my broadcast “Biblical Truth in History and Prophecy” given on Monday and Tuesday, October 24th and 25th, 2011, hosted by Liberty Radio Live. Please review at your interest. Before beginning with my points the following preface was neglected to be stated on either broadcast.
In the beginning of his “Bible School” on-line videos (which I consider to be essentially condescending, brainwashing sessions) he teaches the AV1611 is the ONLY Authority for the English-speaking Christian. Notice he departs from the Apostle Paul’s doctrine of Final Authority followed by all the Protestant and Baptist Churches as per their publilc confessions of faith. This means the underlying Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus—the basis for both the German Luther Bible and the English Tyndale Bible, the AV1611 in its final form) which Scriptures God has DIRECTLY INSPIRED (II Timothy 3:16) and PROVIDENTIALLY PRESERVED (Proverbs 12:6-7) can be discarded into the trash can. This is the doctrine of heretics Dr. Peter Ruckman and his sister heretic, Gail Riplinger—who, as a woman, should never be teaching doctrine in the first place! This, my friends, is the damnable doctrine of “duel inspiration,” specifically, that we, since 1611, have a newly authoritative, Directly Inspired English Bible that replaces the first (and only) Directly Inspired Hebrew and Greek Bible. As Ruckman states, “the English corrects the Greek!” This is MR’s first and foremost heresy, it to serve as the foundational springboard into a heresy-fraught world of iniquity. For the true Church/Body of Christ has never embraced such a doctrine in its 1900-year history save with the beginning of heretic Peter Ruckman in the early 1960s. This doctrine is novel; this doctrine is new; this doctrine is unknown to the past history of the Church/Body of Christ; this doctrine is unfounded in the DIRECTLY INSPIRED Word of God—the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. For in no place do JEHOVAH’s Hebrew and Greek Scriptures state that a TRANSLATION will replace their final authority as being the Directly Inspired and Providentially Preserved Word of God. No Place!
Now God has chosen to build his Church/Body of Christ with translations—translations from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Christ has not built his Church/Body of Christ by circulating his Hebrew and Greek Scriptures among the nations, his ministers insisting that all nations be first instructed in Hebrew and Greek. It is a matter of simple history that God has built his Church with multiple translations—translations derived from the DIRECTLY INSPIRED and PROVIDENTIALLY PRESERVED Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. (This is why the Jesuits in their damnable Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563), utterly curse translating the Bible into the “vulgar tongues” of the common man. This is what both Luther and Tyndale accomplished for which they were forever “accursed and condemned” by Satan’s Roman Papacy!)
And why does Satan’s Roman Papacy prohibit the translating of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (which are not “the Scriptures” according to the Council of Trent, but rather Jerome’s wicked Latin Vulgate!)? Because those translations are also “the Scriptures,” “the Word of God” and are “Inspired”—-though INDIRECTLY by translation. (In departing from this critical fulcrum of truth the Dean Burgon Society (DBS), via Dr. D. A. Waite, loses its balance therefore contending that no translation is “inspired,” of course not directly inspired, but not even indirectly inspired! Your Editor finds this INCREDIBLE to hold that the AV1611 is considered by the DBS to be “the Scriptures” and “the Word of God,” but not “Inspired.” Thus, the Dean Burgon Society appears to be, Neo-Orthodox, i.e., holding that the translations merely “contain” the Word of God, but are not—in their word-for-word entirety—the Word of God!) Therefore, every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph are INDIRECTLY inspired in every Reformation Bible TRANSLATION derived from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus—even the clarifying phrases as found in the AV1611 as per “he hath quickened” (Ephesians 2:1), “the free gift came” (Romans 5:18), “God forbid” (Romans 6:2), “but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also,” (I John 2:23), etc. To the exclusion of “God forbid” (which is a wonderful paraphrase for a powerful Greek phrase), these are clarifying phrases, inserted by the Spirit-led (Romans 8:14), learned and godly forty-seven men, which have been copied and repeated from nearby scriptures within the text and thus are “the Scriptures” added for a better understanding of the passage at hand.
This is called “the principle of clarification,” which principle was employed throughout the text of every Reformation Bible translation. Luther did this; Tyndale did this; and the AV1611 translators perfected the principle evidenced by the highest prose of any English Bible including the Geneva Bible! Though we have the Scriptures—the Indirectly Inspired Word of God—in our epic English AV1611 translation, the principle of clarification must be employed in certain instances. This principle of clarification is set forth in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) hammered out in Scotland about the time of the end of the Black Pope’s First Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648). As recited on pages 17-20 in your Editor’s 92-page “Confession of Faith” under “The Church” found on his website, we read in Chapter I, Article VIII of the Westminster Confession:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have the right unto and interest in the scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope.” [Emphasis added]
The following are examples of clarifying a few words in our AV1611 with their underlying Greek source words. We are not correcting the text, but merely clarifying the text, giving further understanding while vindicating our AV1611 Reformation Bible:
1. Matthew 28:1
Av1611 reads “In the end of the sabbath, . . .”. The noun translated “sabbath” is plural, “sabbaths.” This is translated in the singular to focus on the sabbath after which Christ arose early in the morning of the First Day (6:00 pm Saturday night to 6:00 am Sunday morning, as Hebrew days are first Evening and then Morning). Hence, we have no error in translation but a clarification is needed. Why the plural form of the noun, while in the same verse the same noun in its plural form is used for the entire week of days which is no surprise? Because in AD 32 the Passover fell on a Wednesday-night/Thursday-day (6:00pm-6:00am). The following day Thursday-night/Friday-day was not the regular sabbath, but “an High Day,” the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread (John 19:31). This day was to be a sabbath to Israel, a holy convocation, no work to be done therein (Lev. 23:7). This was the first sabbath occurring on the 15th of Nisan (Thursday-night/Friday-day). Then came the normal, weekly Sabbath (Friday-night/Saturday-day), hence the second consecutive sabbath. Obviously, there were two consecutive, back-to-back “sabbaths” which fact is recorded in Matthew 28:1.
2. Revelation 10:6
AV1611 reads “. . . that there should be time no longer.” The noun for “time” is “chronos” which meaning is determined by the text. Here it concerns a period of time that has elapsed and should be understood to mean “delay of time,” not merely time. For when the seventh trumpet sounds and the Second Coming of Christ occurs, all the mystery of God is to be finished and all the prophets have foretold is to be finished or completed—which includes Christ’s Second Coming to Israel and finally sitting on his earthly throne of David (Luke 1:32-33 as per Isaiah 9:6-7), the throne of his glory (Matthew 25:31). Thus, time is not at an end, but the delay of time between the suffering of Christ and the glory that should follow (I Pet. 1:11) is completed, is finished, is no longer.
3. John 21:15-17
AV1611 translates two separate Greek nouns for love as “love” throughout the narration. The first noun is “agapas” meaning a sacrificial love. The second is “phileo” meaning a fondness. Christ asks Peter if he has a sacrificial love for him; Peter answers that he is fond of him. The second time Christ asks Peter if he has a sacrificial love for him. Peter again replies that he is fond of him. The third time Christ asks Peter if he is even fond of him. Peter was grieved and said that Christ did know that he was fond of Christ. Now there is no error in translation, as it was correct and adhered to the principle of brevity with simplicity for memorization purposes. But the entire narration cannot be fully understood without knowing the difference between the two Greek verbs employed therein.
These are examples of the right use of clarifying the AV1611 or any other Reformation Bible translation with its directly inspired and preserved Master, the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as defined above. The AV1611 is not corrected for there are no errors; rather, it is enhanced. The men generally responsible for this high responsibility are the pastor-teachers and teachers, men who have been given those spiritual gifts by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:11). It is for this reason these men, who are in fact elders in the faith and engaging in this difficult and taxing responsibility of laboring in “word and doctrine” for the edification of the Church/Body of Christ, are to be given “special honor” by other believers in the local Church (I Tim. 5:17), but not a blind obedience. It is these men who are to guard the flock of God from wolves seeking to devour the Lord’s people as stated in Acts 20:29-30:
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”
Martin Richling is one such ravenous wolf speaking perverse things while drawing disciples after himself. Other heresies of MR are as follows:
1. MR believes the Romans’ Road is “the road to hell.”
2. MR believes the gospel is Romans 3:24-26 as opposed to gospel defined by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 15:1-4.
3. MR believes in a novel doctrine, uniquely of his own creation, which he titles “The Establishment Commandment” supposedly found in Romans 16:25-26. He preaches that one is not established in the faith unless one embraces this heresy which acts as a springboard into a cesspool of other heresies.
4. MR believes that the city of Revelation 17 is not Rome but Vatican City. Only Rome was built on seven hills/mountains (the underlying Greek word being translated both “mountain” and “hill” in Luke 9:28, 37) and remains so to this day as per Revelation 17:9. Vatican City, on the other hand, was created by Jesuit Pope Pius XI and Fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1929 via the Lateran Treaty facilitated by Jesuit Pietro Tacchi-Venturi.
5. MR believes that the Christian is not to be aware of the doctrines, deeds and history of the papacy now under full sway of the devil’s military Society of Jesus. He perverts the true meaning of Romans 16:19 as a justification for his discouraging any pursuit of knowledge of the Jesuit Order, while ignoring the clear exhortation of II Corinthians 2:11, that we should not be ignorant of “the devices” of Satan—which devices include his greatest second cause, the Society of Jesus/Society of Horus!
In conclusion, the Word of God has given its verdict for convicted heretic Martin Richling:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
“For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
“A man that is a heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
“Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
(For all those who now blindly follow this obstinate heretic, heed this warning):
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you unto the grace of Christ unto another gospel;
“Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which you have preached unto you [I Corinthians 15:1-4], let him be accursed.
“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received [I Corinthians 15:1-4], let him be accursed.”
The following is an analysis of the above article by Dr. Phil Stringer, Pastor of Ravenswood Baptist Church, Chicago. Phil is also a member of the Dean Burgon Society, one of the founders of the King James Bible Research Council and my personal friend. My reply follows his anaylsis.
Thanks for sending this. I have never heard of Martin Richling. I spent a few minutes on his website and was quickly turned off when he claimed to have correctly interpreted every verse of the Bible. His pride overwhelms him and this is where cults come from. No one is as accomplished as he thinks he is.
There is much good in your analysis of the doctrine of Scripture. I have thought the terminology “directly inspired” and “indirectly inspired” might be a real contribution to the horrible debate going on now.
However “inspired” is not a Bible word. Webster gives several definitions and under some of them your statement about Scripture is correct. But there is not a Bible definition of the word “inspired” and God forbids us to attack one another over the definition of words. Your criticism of Dr Waite is overdone. The difference between you and Dr. Waite is semantical and not doctrinal or practical.
The difference between you and Dr Riplinger is doctrinal and practical and you point it out well.
I do not say everything the way that Dr. Waite does but I respect him greatly and know his loyalty to the word of God. Differing with him is fine, none of us is above being disagreed with.
Your article would be better if you rephrased your statement about Dr. Waite or eliminated it all together.
May God bless your faithfulness to him.
Pastor Phil Stringer
Dear Pastor Stringer,
Thank you for your analysis as I respect you as being a true man of God.
As to the issue of the word “inspired,” and D. A. Waite’s refusal to state the AV1611 English Reformation Bible is “inspired,” even though indirectly, I shall reply.
Indeed, the word “inspired” does not occur in the AV1611 Bible. Rather the word “inspiration” occurs as per II Timothy 3:16:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God (lit. “god-breathed”) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God might be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
If “all scripture,” herein being the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, is “given by inspiration of God,” can we not say that “all scripture” is “inspired?” Do not we use this abbreviation “inspired” in our biblical discussions, the term being descriptive of the biblical phrase “inspiration of God?” Do we not state that the scriptures are “inspired” in our teachings? And if we are forbidden to use the term “inspired” because it does not occur in the English Bible, then we must be bound by that principle with regard to the term “Trinity” in reference to “the Godhead,” the term “Trinity” also never occurring in the AV1611 Bible. Clearly God is a Tri-une God—known as “The Trinity” in common discussion—and thus there is no contradiction of terms, though “Trinity” is not in the translation text.
The same principle must be extended to our discussion of the term “inspired.” Though not to be found in the entirety of “the Word of God,” it is descriptive of “inspiration of God” and thus there is no contradiction of terms. Hence, any Reformation Bible Translation, springing from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures inspired and preserved by God, not only is considered to be “the Scriptures,” but also “the Word of God.” To this conclusion, Dr. Waite would not disagree. But to then assert, when teaching Biblical doctrine, that the AV1611 is “the Scriptures” and “the Word of God,” and then deny that it is not “given by inspiration of God” serves as an indirect attack upon the reality that the translation is “All Scripture” and is “the Word of God.”
In conclusion, if the AV1611 Reformation English Bible does not carry the mark of being “inspired” (i.e., “given by inspiration of God”), then we are precluded from calling our blessed AV1611 “the Scriptures” or “the Word of God.” This is my basic contention and I cannot retract. It is not a matter of semantics evidenced by the logical conclusions of both sides of this issue. When Brother Waite will admit that the AV1611 is “the Scriptures,” is “the Word of God,” and is therefore, by necessity in being the scriptures, “given by inspiration of God”—although indirectly via translation—I must hold to my conclusion above. For carried to its logical conclusion, Dr. Waite’s position opens the door to the Jesuitical and infidel doctrine of “higher textual criticism,” specifically the denial of any Reformation Bible translation being “the Scriptures” or “the Word of God.” This leads to furthering the Jesuit Order’s wicked Counter-Reformation in its military quest of destroying the Lord’s grand and glorious Protestant Reformation. That destruction includes every Protestant and Baptist people enjoying the secured liberty of freedom of conscience within nations enjoying Constitutional government specifically limiting the powers of its leaders contrary to the design of Papal Roman absolutism.