Lamp in the Dark

I’m curious if anyone else has had the opportunity to watch “Lamp in the Dark” from Christian Pinto, distributed by Adullam Films.

It can be found on Youtube here:

If you have seen the film, what did you think of it and its content? This is a question for people on both sides of the preservation argument.

(Just a personal note, my father appears in the film for about 15 seconds. He tells me that his interview will be featured in the second film of the series.)


12 thoughts on “Lamp in the Dark

  1. Harrison Hamada July 3, 2011 / 9:53 pm

    I will not have a chance to watch the video till tomorrow, but just the “description” of the video as geevious errors. 1 The iquisition did NOT begin to silence Christians and outlawing the Bible, although in crtain times and areas it was certainly used to do so. 2 It threats the supression of the Albigenses (Cathar Heresy) as if they were some innocent movement of intellectual freedom 3 While the Jesuits were founded around the same time as the Counter Reormation, the Jesuits were NOT founded to confront Protestants. They were founded as a mission to the Muslims. Neither their charter nor Roman Letters of Aprobation even mention Protestantism.

    I have watched up to 26 MIns. This seems to be a very SLANTED video and I was correct, the section on the Cathar heresy is FALACIOUS. The issue with the Waldenses is also slanted. The issue with the supporession of their translation was just as much a combination of an unqualified translator as it was of preventing the uneducated masses to have a common language translation which COULD cause doctrinal error. Even though Luther advocated a common language translation he, feared having the Bible availilbe to the uneducated. This video seems very slanted against Catholics (I am not Catholic myself, I am Anglican)

    • Erik DiVietro July 3, 2011 / 10:39 pm

      Some interesting observations, Harrison. Thanks for stopping by. I’d be interested in your further comments as you get through the film. I will say it took me the better part of two days to get through the film, because there were a lot of things presented as “fact” that I wanted to research as I went.

  2. Damien July 4, 2011 / 7:37 pm

    I’m only about 12 minutes in, but this is going to be hard for me to watch. I agree with Harrison above, this video is very agenda-driven against the Catholic church. I went over to the Adullam Films website and much of what they promote is the sort of conspiracy-laden Christianity that I have grown to hate. The first commentator, Roger Oakland, is also one of those conspiracy driven, self appointed “watchmen” and I would be very skeptical of someone like him (his pronunciation of “grievous” gave away his credentials, or lack there of <—sorry I know I'm nit-picking here, I pronounce things wrong all the time but seriously, why did that make the cut? Just seems to undermine the video's credibility. . .). And then "Dr. David Brown, Manuscript Collector" says something like there was no church at Rome when Romans was written. Huh?

    This video so far seems like something Chick publications would produce. I wonder what's coming next. . .

  3. Damien July 4, 2011 / 8:36 pm

    another questionable resource: Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast..

    It also seems to draw on Trail of Blood type historical revisionism. .

    It quotes David Cloud’s book on Rome. . .Cloud is referred to as a historian…

    In its section on the Inquisition no reason whatsoever is provided that the Albigenses were “Bible-believers.” Their doctrine isn’t even discussed. In fact, one “Researcher” quoted (a guy who maintains a website on the Cathars) in the film provides enough info to refute that idea on his site.

    Dr. Alan Reilly is, pretty much, a Ruckmanite. He propagates the same Italic version myth that permeates Ruckmanite KJVO materials. Reilly has beef with Waite, it seems, for not calling the KJV “inspired” (a quick search yielded that).

    Jack Moorman appears and refers to this supposed Trail of Blood as a “silver steam of believers” that were never part of Rome

    ok, I’m about 40 min in and maybe I’ll catch up with more later or tomorrow. So far, in short, this is simply a video version of a Sam Gipp book.

    • Erik DiVietro July 5, 2011 / 7:44 am

      Alan O’Reilly is far beyond a Ruckmanite. For one thing, he is a geocentrist. He has some other interesting beliefs, but just that one point should give us pause.

      Ian Paisley is also the head of European Institute for Protestant Studies which gets cited repeatedly. “Professor” Arthur Noble who is also cited is a “professor” at Paisley’s institute. In fact, if you go back over the film and count up the number of times Paisley, the EIPS or David Hunt are quoted or paraphrased, it is the vast majority of the film.

      Some of the men who appear on the film – like my dad, Jack Moorman and D.A. Waite – are at least somewhat level-headed critics of modern texts and such. But then there are some guys in this film who are extreme lunatic fringe. You would think an honest filmmaker would have been more discerning.

    • Carl July 5, 2011 / 3:36 pm

      Erik, you mean that there are those who actually exist that are “far beyond a Ruckmanite”?

      That’s scary.

  4. Nazaroo July 15, 2011 / 10:44 am

    Some forget that the Roman Catholic church really did persecute Scripture reading Christians of all types, and horrifically murdered and tortured them.

    A mere hundred years or so ago, they were still trying to ban the Bible.

    That Guy Fawkes, a Jesuit conspirator, really did try to blow up the English parliament in order to install a Roman Catholic monarch is blatant fact of history.

    The ‘nice guy’ image that the Roman Catholic hierarchy projects today is about as credible as “toy/charity drives” sponsored by the Hells Angels is.


    • redgreen5 July 15, 2011 / 10:32 pm

      While Anglicans hanged and then burned Tyndale for translating the Bible into English. Then Puritan Oliver Cromwell killed 30,000 Catholics in Ireland alone, dispossessing thousands more, and leaving still more thousands to die a slow death from starvation.

      Did you have an actual salient point, Nazaroo?

      Or was this just another drive-by character assassination against Catholics for crimes that Protestants are also guilty of?

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2011 / 5:09 am

      The ‘nice-guy image’ of Protestants does not exactly stand up to scrutiny either.

      Puritans in New England were responsible for more than a few persecutions of the innocent. Whipping people for worshipping in homes, using Inquisition style tactics to get people to confess as ‘witches’ – that sort of thing.

      Martin Luther inspired any number of people who used violence to overthrow principalities and duchies in Europe.

      You cannot condemn an entire group under one label because of the excesses of the few, even if they are a powerful few.

  5. redgreen5 July 16, 2011 / 1:07 pm

    American folk mythology – as well as many conservative Christians – like to claim that the Massachusetts Puritans (Pilgrims) were in search of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, fleeing persecution in England. And thus the United States was born, as a refuge for religious liberty.

    However, the reality is somewhat more complicated. The Puritans were unable to change the Anglican church in the manner they saw fit, and thus were “discriminated against” because they weren’t allowed to have their way. Following that, of course, more institutional discrimination occurred, prompting many to leave for the New World.

    And as one might expect, having now set up a society in Massachusetts the way they wanted it, the leaders of the colony were able to bloom into their full measure of narrowmindedness, strictness, and intolerance. The Massachusetts Bay colony imposed strict belief requirements and tolerated no heresies or disagreement.

    One particular member of this colony, Roger Williams, began to question how the whites were dealing with the native Americans; specifically, the practice of taking land without paying for it. In addition, he began questioning the king’s claims about being the first Christian monarch to bring religion to the natives. He was opposed to forced oaths of allegiance and other similar attempts to restrict free inquiry and religious thought.

    For these ideas and other acts, Roger Williams was banished from the Massachusetts colony. He traveled to the west, to the head of Narrangansett Bay, where Indian friends (whom he had previously treated with fairness and respect) gave him aid and shelther. After negotiating for a tract of land, Williams set up a new colony as a refuge for those “distressed of conscience”, with a government limited to civil matters, not religious affairs. Thus the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was born.

    So the next time someone tries to wave the flag and tell you that America was founded on religious liberty, and its spiritual forefathers the Pilgrims were fleeing persecution in England, you can now ask them if they know the story of how Rhode Island came to exist.

    • Erik DiVietro July 16, 2011 / 1:20 pm

      There are a couple distinctions worth making.

      1. The Pilgrims were not only a group of religious dissenters. In fact, most of the people in that first pilgrim voyage on the Mayflower were not religious dissenters at all. They were agents of the financiers, ensuring that the colony did what it was supposed to.

      2. The Puritans who started the Massachusetts Bay Colony were not the same group as the Plymouth Puritans. The folks who settled Boston were financed by the Massachusetts Bay Company and started their colony in 1633, 13 years after the Plymouth group.

      3. Most people don’t realize that the Plymouth Colony was not the first English attempt at settling New England. A group of 120 settlers planted the doomed Sagadohoc Colony in Maine in 1607. The English crown had long since established two companies to settle the New World – the London Company which had founded Jamestown and the Plymouth Company (which became the Plymouth Council for New England) had founded Sagadohoc, and eventually Plymouth Plantation (hence the name.) The Massachusetts Bay Company came later, and competed with the Plymouth Company.

Comments are closed.