# The Antichrist



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 25, 2004)

What or who do you think the Antichrist is?


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 25, 2004)

Mr. Pope and his fellow papists... not really

Which antichrist are you talking about... I can think of alot?


----------



## BC (Apr 25, 2004)

satan a.k.a. the devil a.k.a. Lucifer


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 25, 2004)

Emperors Caligula, Titus, Nero, Claudius, Rick Warren, and the list goes on...


----------



## dkicklig (Apr 25, 2004)

As of today...I'll have to go with Ken Gentry's assesment that Nero was Antichrist


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 25, 2004)

There are many antichrists. Every age will have them.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Who shall we add to the list?

1) Harold Camping
2)


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 25, 2004)

[quote:dbe68e4bac][i:dbe68e4bac]Originally posted by joshua[/i:dbe68e4bac]
Rick Warren?!?!?? That's a little much, now. [/quote:dbe68e4bac]

I was joking. Thats why I named the emporers, then threw &quot;purpose man&quot; in with them.


----------



## mjbee (Apr 25, 2004)

I think joking about the Antichrist is most inappropriate! [edited] ya'all, have you no shame????

&lt;Edited for inapropriate language -Moderator.&gt;



[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 25, 2004)

[quote:3969214cf7][i:3969214cf7]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:3969214cf7]
I think joking about the Antichrist is most inappropriate! [edited] ya'all, have you no shame???? [/quote:3969214cf7]

What? I was joking about Rick Warren, not the antichrist himself. The antichrist takes many forms, there is nothing wrong with saying so and so is the antichrist if there is valid reason. I was not belittling the person of the antichrist (oh, big sin), but Warren. But it was a joke, a very light hearted one at that.

And if you want to be picky here, you just took the Lord's name in vain. But that happens all the time, I guess offending the antichrist is a bigger deal...

Rembrandt

[Edited on 4-26-2004 by rembrandt]



[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## Ianterrell (Apr 26, 2004)

Seriously,


I think the Antichrist is mainly a spiritual influence that is against Christ and his bride. I believe that Satan will be loosed and will mount a final advance against the Kingdom of God. I believe that there may or may not be an Antichrist (man of lawlessness) that will lead this final advance and that Christ will come and destroy the Antichrist along with Satan, and his kingdom. I don't have any specific knowledge of who this individual will be, and I don't think those specifics will be known until as Paul says &quot;the man of lawlessness will be revealed&quot;.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 26, 2004)

I think the antichrist is Nero... yes I know that Scripture does not speak about &quot;the antichrist&quot;... but it does speak about the man of lawlessness and the beast whose number is 666... so in a theologicial sense it is proper to speak of the antichrist as Nero... though Scripture does not exactly use the phrase about Nero it does identify the theologicial conept attached to &quot;the antichrist&quot; to Nero. Gentry defends this thesis really will in his book the Beat of Revelation. 

-Tyler


----------



## rembrandt (Apr 26, 2004)

What I haven't been able to figure out, is why does John talk about uncovering the antichrist's identity?... whoever finds the meaning of 666 (or whatever he says)...

Rembrandt


----------



## BC (Apr 26, 2004)

You guys know about the title of the pope - 'VICARIUS FILII DEI' (Vicar of God) and how the roman numerals add up to 666 i.e. V+I+C+I+V + I+L+I+I + D+I - apart from that anti-christian system, does this explanation have Scriptural authority?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 26, 2004)

*Here is what the WCF says - do you agree?*

VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [b:ffb7ac2225]but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[/b:ffb7ac2225]

13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22
14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4


----------



## BC (Apr 26, 2004)

Does the branding of the pope with '666' through the explanation I gave earlier have scriptural authority?


----------



## Irishcat922 (Apr 26, 2004)

No Hope in the Pope!!:lb:


----------



## sastark (Apr 26, 2004)

[quote:52f45b759e][i:52f45b759e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:52f45b759e]
VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [b:52f45b759e]but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[/b:52f45b759e]

13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22
14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4 [/quote:52f45b759e]

YES! I agree. Am I the only one on this board?

PS- Matt, although I agree that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist, I do not think the guy who sent you the e-mails about this used the proper tone. I know that thread is now locked, and I'm not trying to reopen it. I guess I'm just trying to say that not everyone who agrees with the WCF is such a &quot;not-nice-person&quot; (do we have a smiley for &quot;Jack&quot; the founder of &quot;Jack-in-the-Box&quot; and one for a Donkey? If we did, I would have replaced &quot;not-nice-person&quot; with those two smileys and let you put 2 and 2 together.)


----------



## Scott (Apr 27, 2004)

Here is another contender:
http://larknews.com/march_2004/secondary.php?page=6


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 28, 2004)

[quote:04f7540881][i:04f7540881]Originally posted by Scott[/i:04f7540881]
Here is another contender:
http://larknews.com/march_2004/secondary.php?page=6 [/quote:04f7540881]


Now that is hilarious!!!! And and the same time very sad.



 and


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 28, 2004)

If &quot;anti&quot; in antichrist means [i:2ff9b7f6e8]instead of[/i:2ff9b7f6e8] rather than [i:2ff9b7f6e8]against[/i:2ff9b7f6e8], I would readily say that it refers to the Pope. He arrogates to himself many of the Divine titles (Vicar of Christ, Prince of Peace, His Holiness, etc.). 

But then again, maybe it's John Kerry.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2004)

I think Nero, Titus, Dominitan, the Pope, and any other anti-Christian rulers have all given us a picture of how the Antichrist can and will be. Call them types I guess. But remember that the AntiChrist or beast will lead the entire world in rebellion, not just a particular region. I think the natural reading of the text lends itself to one individual who will rise up before the return of Christ, though it certainly is possible that it could be a group of people or government. But the spirit of antichrist goes anywhere the gospel goes fighting against the kingdom of God, doing anything to stop the spread of the gospel. And another thing is clear, that the elect will see the beast for who he is. Right now, we can say that there are many antichrists. But the world is certainly not united in opposition to Christ yet. Catholics, Hindu's, Muslims, Jews, and Buddists still fight amongst themselves. BUt the ecumenical movements are there and growing. All it will take is one leader to unite them against the &quot;intolerant&quot; faithful once the time is right. :wr50:


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2004)

Rev 19
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had[5] a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[6] followed Him on white horses. 15Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[7] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: 
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. 

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, &quot;Come and gather together for the supper of the great God,[8] 18that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free[9] and slave, both small and great.&quot; 
19And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.


Rev 20
7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[2] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 


Do yo think these passages are describing the same event?
I think they are, just in different points of view. Rev. 19 covers the victory over the beast. Rev. 20 covers the victory over Satan. Notice both have rallied the world against Christ and his people. And both are thrown into the lake of fire at their defeat with the return of Christ. :wr50:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 29, 2004)

On Rev. 19-20 there is an excellent paper I had posted on my site by fowler White. It is very well done.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/WhiteFowlerRecapitulationRev19.htm


----------



## Irishcat922 (Apr 29, 2004)

[quote:22242fffb1][i:22242fffb1]Originally posted by Scott[/i:22242fffb1]
Here is another contender:
http://larknews.com/march_2004/secondary.php?page=6 [/quote:22242fffb1]
Well he did marry a Kennedy! So you just never know now do you.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 29, 2004)

[quote:c724bedfba][i:c724bedfba]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c724bedfba]

The Rider on a White Horse

11Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in a robe dipped in[4] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, &quot;Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave,[5] both small and great.&quot; 19And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.20And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence[6] had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

[b:c724bedfba]The King is pictured as going to war against his enemies. Note: Read Psalm 110 in conjunction with this passage. Now, if we read Daniel 7, letting the Bible interpret itself, we see a stricking similarity. Christs coronation as king is tied to his defeat of these kingdoms...especially the &quot;little horn&quot; of the &quot;fourth kingdom.&quot; The parrelles with &quot;the little horn&quot; and the beast of revelation are numerous. In Danile the fourth kingdom...is rome. Also, this judging is connected in Daniel with Christs ascension. NOT his second advent![/b:c724bedfba] 

[b:c724bedfba]Since I have shown (very, very, briefly...we could go into much, much, more) that Rev 19 was the destruction of Jerusalem and we know that this does not happen AFTER the millennium but rather at 70 a.d. We can conclude, then, that they are different events. One takes place AFTER the millennium, and one before it. [/b:c724bedfba] 
[/quote:c724bedfba]
So how did Christ throw Nero alive into the lake of fire and slay the rest of his army? Which army did Christ destroy? How did He conquer Rome according to your interpretation?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

All,
So whether hess hear now or not what are the events we know in scripture to take place priot to the second coming?

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

*Found This*

Antichrist in Scripture

by Francis Nigel Lee

Short Summary of the findings, extracted from a message delivered at the 1997 Blue Banner Conference. See catalog for ordering information.

Let us now shortly summarize the above teachings of Holy Scripture, Martin Luther and Calvinistic Protestantism.

About 540 B.C., Daniel predicted the cessation of all new prophesying around the time of Christ's death. This, Daniel associated with the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple within that very same generation! Daniel 2:34-45; 7:7-19; 8:9-12, 20-25; 9:24-27; 11:30-45; 12:1-4. 
Daniel also predicted that, beginning in AD 70, first the Pagan Roman Empire and then papal Rome as its successor would pollute God's true temple (the Christian Church). That would last for 1260 day-years, or till AD 1330. However, then the great plague called the 'Black Death' would sweep across the civilized world, killing most of its ungodly inhabitants. Daniel 7:24ff &amp; 12:7 cf. Revelation 9:20ff; 11:2-9ff; 12:6-14; 13:1-7. 
Daniel further predicted that the pollution of the Christian Church, starting in AD 70, would begin to cease after 1290 day-years. The latter would occur thirty years after the 1260 years and hence in AD 1360ff. Daniel 12:11 cf. 7:25 &amp; 12:7. That was when God raised up John Wycliffe in the middle of the 'Black Death' with which He punished a deformed Church. See Revelation 9:20ff &amp; 11:2-9ff. Cf. 'AIDS' today! Revelation 15:1-18:4. 
Daniel last predicted that a further time of great blessing would start to occur at the end of 1335 day-years after AD 70. Daniel 12:4-12. This would occur when John Huss started preaching Wycliffe's Proto-Protestant views in Bohemia, in AD 1405. CF. Revelation 14:6ff. Only yet thereafter, God told Daniel, would he himself be resurrected &quot;at the end of the days.&quot; Daniel 12:13. 
The appearance of Christ at His incarnation, elicited opposition from several minor antichrists. Matthew 23:2-36 &amp; John 17:12. The apostle John predicted that these 'antichrists' had already emerged, even before the Holy Scriptures were finally completed. I John 2:18ff &amp; 4:1-3, and II John 7. Yet that same John also insisted that the pagan Roman empire would later be replaced by another 'religious' Roman beast. That latter would look like a lamb, but speak like a dragon. Revelation 13:1-11ff cf. Daniel 7:7-25. Indeed, Paul too predicted a great apostasy and the emergence of 'the man of sin' who would rule in the temple, the very Church of God! II Thessalonians 2:3-8. 
Probably from even before, and certainly from not long after AD 70, Britain in particular and much of Europe in general started becoming Christian. Especially around the fifth century, the roman Empire broke up into ten &quot;horns&quot; or kingdoms followed by another diverse and blasphemous &quot;horn.&quot; Daniel 2:41ff; 7:7, 20, 25; Revelation 13:1-18; 17:3-16. From around AD 600 onward, only the bishop at Rome was called 'pope' ('holy father'). The first papal missionary to Britain, (in AD 600ff) Austin of Rome, was then stoutly resisted by the Culdee or British Celtic Christians. Only after the 664 Synod of Whitby, from about AD 666 onward, did most of Europe and some of England but not Ireland, Scotland and Wales become increasingly Romanized. Thus, the Romish papal power or &quot;horn&quot; became strong or &quot;stout&quot; and long sat and ruled in the Temple of God, while claiming to be His spokesman. However, that spokesman was in fact 'the man of sin' antichrist! Daniel 7:25; 8:20-25; 11:36ff; 12:8-11; II Thessalonians 3:3-8, 12; II Peter 2:1-5ff; Revelation 13:11-18; 17:1-17. 
In fulfillment of the prophecies, the Lord in AD 1330 sent the great plague called the 'Black Death.' Daniel 12:11 cf. Revelation 9:20ff; 11:2-9ff; 12:6-14. One major purpose of this, was to punish the deformed church which had departed from God's Word; exalted the pope; and worshipped the communion bread. Daniel 7:24ff &amp; 12:11 cf. Revelation 13:1-13ff; 15:1-8; 16:1-11. 
Thirty years later, in AD 1360, God raised up John Wycliffe. He asserted the sole sufficiency of the long-completed Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, he ridiculed transubstantiation and assailed the pope as antichrist. Daniel 12:11ff cf. Revelation 14:6ff. 
Forty-five years later, at the end of 1335 years after AD 70, God further raised up John Huss in Bohemia. He promoted Wycliffe's Proto-Protestant views, and inaugurated a time of great blessing in the very heart of Europe. Daniel 12:12 cf. Revelation 14:8ff. 
In AD 1415, Rome burned Huss (the &quot;goose&quot for his Biblical views. This was just after he had announced that though the &quot;unclean birds&quot; of the papacy were then roasting a 'goose' after a hundred years a 'swan' would arise to vindicate him. Cf. Revelation 14:8ff &amp; 18:1-2. 
A century after Huss, God raised up the &quot;swan&quot; Martin Luther! He powerfully propagated the views of Wycliffe and Huss, that the pope was antichrist. He also predicted the destruction of that papal antichrist through the powerful preaching of the Gospel. These Reformation doctrines were well reflected in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, which declare: that &quot;transubstantiation . . . is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture . . . and hath given occasion to many superstitions&quot;; that &quot;the sacrifices of Masses . . . were fables and dangerous deceits&quot;; and that &quot;the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England&quot; (Articles 28, 31 &amp; 37). 
Said Luther against the papal antichrist: &quot;We must slay him with words; the mouth of Christ must do it . . . See what effect this . . . preaching and writing this truth has had; how the papists' cover has shrunk . . . Let us be wise, thank God for His Holy Word, and be bold with our mouths . . . Let us keep boldly on: earnestly inculcate the Word; and drive out the laws of men . . . This is the way Christ is, through us, slaying the papacy.&quot; &quot;Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory!&quot; 
John Calvin took over and systematized Luther's Biblical views. Calvin called Luther &quot;my much respected father&quot; who had denounced &quot;the darkness of the papacy.&quot; Calvin himself then further repeatedly exposed the Roman pontiff as antichrist. 
Calvin indicated that though the AD 600 Gregory the Great was the first bishop at Rome to be called sole pope, Gregory himself had regarded that new title as a mark of antichrist! Yet Calvin saw especially the AD 1415 papal burning of Huss as a clear evidence of the antichristian nature of the papacy. On Daniel 12:4ff, Calvin commented in 1561: &quot;At the present time, in the papacy . . . impiety prevails.&quot; 
Calvin especially insisted that both II Thessalonians 2:3ff and I John 2:18 &amp; 4:4ff clearly brand the pope as antichrist. Romanists, said Calvin, were wrong to regard antichrist as a yet-future tyrant who would harass the church for but three and a half years. Even a ten-year-old, stated Calvin, can see that the centuries-long papacy is itself indeed antichrist! Yet the papal &quot;antichrist will be annihilated by the Word of the Lord . . . Paul does not think the Christ will accomplish this in a moment . . . Christ will scatter the darkness . . . before His coming&quot; by &quot;the preaching of this doctrine.&quot; For &quot;we fight by Christ's power, and are armed with God's weapons . . . We are victorious . . . We can no more be conquered, than can God Himself . . . Victory is certain!&quot; 
Calvin's views were expounded in Britain especially by his student John Knox together with the rest of the &quot;six John's&quot; in the 1560 First Scots Confession. There, the Protestants' &quot;True Kirk is distinguished from the filthy synagogues&quot; of Romanism. Especially against the latter, the Confession sounds the trumpet blast: &quot;Arise, O Lord, and let Thy enemies be confounded . . . Give Thy servants strength to speak Thy Word in boldness, and let all nations cleave to Thy true knowledge!&quot; 
The Calvinistic Second Scots Confession of AD 1580 also known as the Scottish National Covenant denounces &quot;all kinds of papistry in general. We detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman antichrist. Many are stirred up by Satan and that Roman antichrist to subvert secretly God's true religion . . . We therefore . . . protest!&quot; Indeed, this Protestant 'protest' was effective. For the Preamble to the 1618ff international Calvinistic Decrees of Dordt declared that also in Holland &quot;the Church was delivered by the mighty hand of God from the tyranny of the Romish antichrist and the terrible idolatry of the papacy.&quot; Christians were leaving Romanism, Revelation 18:2-4! 
The 1646 Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith denounces &quot;popish monastical vows.&quot; It denies &quot;the pope any power or jurisdiction&quot; over magistrates, citing here not only II Thessalonians 2:4 but also the '666' passage of Revelation 13:15-17. It calls &quot;papists . . . idolaters.&quot; It describes &quot;the popish sacrifice of the 'mass' . . . [as] most abominably injurious to Christ's one sacrifice.&quot; Indeed, it terms &quot;transubstantiation . . . repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason&quot; and indeed &quot;the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.&quot; 
More specifically, the Westminster Confession further insists about deformed churches, that &quot;some have so degenerated as to become synagogues of Satan. Revelation 18:2; Romans 11:18-22 . . . The pope of Rome . . . is that antichrist . . . that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. Matthew 23:8-10; II Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8-9; Revelation 13:6.&quot; 
Finally, the Calvinistic Westminster Larger Catechism insists that, in the Lord's Prayer, the petition 'Thy Kingdom come!' is a plea for the destruction also of the ecclesiastical antichrist and indeed precisely through the good works of the Spirit-empowered Church as Christ's own spiritual weapon! &quot;We pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in, [and] the Church furnished with all gospel-officers and . . . purged from corruption.&quot; Further, &quot;we pray that God would so over-rule the world and all in it that our sanctification and salvation may be perfected [and] Satan trodden under our feet. Romans 16:20!&quot; 
******

So Scripture, Luther, Calvin and Calvinism all teach that antichrist's days are numbered! The papacy will be brought down by the powerful Protestant preaching of the Word of God! II Thessalonians 2:8f cf. Revelation 14:6-8. When that is done:

'Who shall not fear Thee, 
O Lord, and glorify 
Thy Name? For 
Thou only art 
holy. 
For all nations shall come, and worship before Thee!' Revelation 15:4


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Antichrist/antichrist.htm


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

*misc. eschatology*

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/eschatology.html


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

*nero bio*

http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/nero.html


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

*Ok I found him....*

http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/index.shtml


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 30, 2004)

[quote:1ae78e3239]
So, we have Rev 19:1-6 here. What are the people rejoicing over? Seems like the destruction of something. What is it? &quot;He has judged the great prostitute.&quot; Who is &quot;the great prostitute?&quot; Well, this language is used of apostate Israel many times (cf. Isa. 1:21; Jer. 2:20-24, 30-33; 3:1-3; Eze. 16, 23; Hos. 9:1, etc). Who has commited adutary and whored herself? Israel. Furthermore, we know it is Israel because we are told that the one being judged has &quot;the blood of His servents&quot; Who killed the prophets? Israel (cf. Matt. 23: 29-37; Acts 7:51-52). [/quote:1ae78e3239]

Another thing to consider here Paul is that the description given here of the prostitute doesn't match the description of apostate Israel. I agree, Israel was accussed of such prostitution. But the scope of influence of the prostitute in Revelation is much larger. It is global in scope. 
Consider these passages in Rev. 17:
1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me,[1] &quot;Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 
2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.&quot; 

18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.&quot;

And Rev. 18:
3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.&quot; 

23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.&quot;

And Rev. 19:
2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication;



And Revelation speaks of the prostitute and the beast as allies working together, though the ten kings are described as hating her. That doesn't really fit the description of Jerusalem or Israel, who was destroyed by the beast (if you think the beast to be Nero or Rome) when the Scriptures have the Prostitute being judged by God with the smoke of her burning rising up forever. Plus, Jerusalem never had such a global influence as is described here (nor was she ever really an ally of Rome, hence the human reason for her destruction in 70 AD by the Romans). All the nations of the world, partook of the harlots abominations. This prostitute is much bigger than apostate Israel.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 30, 2004)

the prostitute is america it only makes sense new york is the worlds largest port and by my estimates its only a matter of time before its nuked and the merchants of the world mourn her loss.

blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 30, 2004)

[quote:48ecd78598][i:48ecd78598]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:48ecd78598]
the prostitute is america it only makes sense new york is the worlds largest port and by my estimates its only a matter of time before its nuked and the merchants of the world mourn her loss.

blade [/quote:48ecd78598]
Your getting closer Nathan


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 1, 2004)

[quote:02c29fad5f][i:02c29fad5f]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:02c29fad5f]
http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/index.shtml [/quote:02c29fad5f]
Very compelling!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 1, 2004)

Patrick,
the three babylons consist of Rome,New York(because rockefeller rules there, and the real babylon in I raq now takin over by the roman churchs pawn. 

Also there could eb afourth modern day babylon that being Jerusalem. 

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 1, 2004)

irishcat,
it is isnt it


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2004)

&lt;EDITED by WEBMASTER&gt;

Before Keith is going to be allowed to post on this board, he is going to offer the webmaster an apology for his attitude through email correspondance. He can email the apology to [email protected] and direct it to &quot;webmaster&quot;. He will not be allowed to post until that happens.

CMM

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 1, 2004)

ok thanks for the post it was just a personal opinion not a stated position of mine.

blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 1, 2004)

[quote:f3ef4cfeab][i:f3ef4cfeab]Originally posted by Keith Dotzler[/i:f3ef4cfeab]
The Reformation. The two witnesses (preachers, teachers, and prophets in every age). The list goes on. Everything was sent by God and His amazing grace, that His elect would be able to recognize, separate from, and do battle with the beast and its kingdom (NOTE: Popes are CORONATED and receive a CROWN, just like kings). Christians today, if they truly be guided by the Holy Spirit, should EASILY be able to see God's hand working AGAINST Rome, in all its forms. 
[/quote:f3ef4cfeab]
I won't deal with the rest of your post yet because there's some personal and hermenuetic issues here we must deal with. 
You seem to assume that those who do not hold to this interpretation of Revelation are not guided by the Spirit. Is this true? If so, is it possible for any who do not hold to this interpretation to be saved?

[quote:f3ef4cfeab]
The battles and invasions in the book of Revelation are against APOSTATE, ROMAN CHRISTIANITY, with its head, the PAPACY, and its false bride, the Roman Catholic Church. 
[/quote:f3ef4cfeab]
In light of your interpretation of Revelation, how could this book provide any comfort to the 1st century Christians to whom it was written? There was no Papacy then. There were no Popes. How would these Christians have understood this book? Who would they understand the harlot and beast to be?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 2, 2004)

Keiths' post above has been edited by me. :tomb:


----------



## andreas (May 2, 2004)

The scriptures tell us who antichrist is:

&quot;Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son&quot;.
1 John 2:22



&quot;And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.&quot;
1 John 4:3



&quot;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&quot;.
2 John 1:7
andreas.


:book:


----------



## Rand Winburn (May 3, 2004)

*Antichrist's Identity*

Dear Puritan Board Members:
In re-reading the posts concerning the identity of the Antichrist (yes, the definite article in Greek is found in 1 John 2:18) I was saddened, but not shocked, by the fact that a Reformed, Puritan Message Board had so many erroneous opinions.

For example, Ian Terrell said
&quot;I don't have any specific knowledge of who this individual will be, and I don't think those specifics will be known until as Paul says &quot;the man of lawlessness will be revealed&quot;.

Rembrandt said
&quot;What I haven't been able to figure out, is why does John talk about uncovering the antichrist's identity?...&quot;

Preterist Paul Manata said
&quot;For one, &quot;anyone who denies that Jesus has came in the flesh, that man is the antichrist.&quot; So, basically we have a large majority of the earth's population. And the pope would not fall under this definition.&quot;


Nathan Brandal suggests Pink's work on The Antichrist. However, Pink had since refuted this work, admitting his ignorance of prophecy. Nathan also theorized America as the great whore of Rev. 17. Matt, the website founder, apparently agrees that Nathan is on the right track with this preposterous interpretation.

Of all the members who posted, only Seth Stark agreed with the WCF.

Pastor Bill Paul suggested 
&quot;If &quot;anti&quot; in antichrist means [i:7cc91e71a4]instead of[/i:7cc91e71a4] rather than [i:7cc91e71a4]against[/i:7cc91e71a4] I would readily say that it refers to the Pope. He arrogates to himself many of the Divine titles (Vicar of Christ, Prince of Peace, His Holiness, etc.).&quot;

Yet Bill does not understand that the Greek 'anti' means both [i:7cc91e71a4]instead of[/i:7cc91e71a4] and [i:7cc91e71a4]against[/i:7cc91e71a4] when used as the prefix in Antichrist. Furthermore, it denotes a [i:7cc91e71a4]rival[/i:7cc91e71a4].

Sadly, the absolute lack of understanding in the prophecies concerning the Antichrist are the result of a growing apostasy in the professing Protestant churches. The ordained pastors with formal schooling inherited their errors from seminaries and bible schools, the seed bed of erroneous doctrines. Dallas Theological Seminary is an excellent example of this. Satan has nearly extinguished the true understanding of prophecy, much to his glory, and to the dishonor of Christ and His Body, the saints, martyrs and prophets, who fought the good fight of faith against the known Antichrist for centuries.

Rather than tediously refute all erroneous theories proposed on the board, I bring forward the testimony of Puritan William Perkins, a theologian much admired by the founder of [i:7cc91e71a4]A Puritan's Mind[/i:7cc91e71a4]. In his arguments, Perkins refutes Preterism, a Jesuit false teaching which was then gaining momentum in the churches, and which today holds sway in many Calvinistic churches and schools. Following Perkins, I paste a link to my website in which Francis Turretin, another honored theologian of [i:7cc91e71a4]A Puritan's Mind[/i:7cc91e71a4], refutes Futurism, a Jesuit false teaching which has a stronghold on most evangelical churches today. Both Turretin and Perkins arrive at the same conclusions as to the identity of the Antichrist, the very same conclusion reached by the WCF.

Either these great, distinguished men of God were correct and must be believed by lovers of truth, or they were devoid of wisdom and the Spirit, fooled by Satan, teaching lies for truth, and must be shunned as teachers not sent by God. 

Rand Winburn
Director
Protestant Reformation Publications
http://www.iconbusters.com
__________________________________________________________


[size=18:7cc91e71a4]An excellent sermon, plainly proving that Rome is Babylon: and that Babylon is fallen[/size:7cc91e71a4]
[b:7cc91e71a4]Preached long since by a famous Divine [William Perkins], and added as a Commentary to the hardest part of the Revelation.[/b:7cc91e71a4]

[Source: Lectres upon the first chapters of the Revelation: preached in Cambridge, A. D. 1695, by Master William Perkins, and now published for the benefit of this Church, by Robert Hill, Bachelor of Divinitie, to which is added an excellent sermon, penned at the request of that noble and wise Councellor, Ambrose, Earl of Warwick, etc.. (London: Richard Field, 1604).]

"................But now I know what will be objected against me, That I have traveled all in vain, to prove that Babylon is fallen, and that Babylon is Rome: and that I have abused the texts of Scripture, and sentences of old Doctors, to prove the same. For whatsoever is contained either in the Scripture, or in the writings of the ancient Doctors, to prove that Babylon is Rome, is to be understood of Rome under the heathen Emperors, and not under the Popes: and that all this while I have wrested the Scriptures, and forced the Doctors to affirm that which they never thought of. Indeed I will confess that some Prophecies contained in this Revelation, were fulfilled in the heathen Emperors, and that the heathen Empire was an introduction unto Antichrist: but that Antichrist, the great enemy of the church of Christ, and which is principally called Antichrist, could not be any of the heathen Monarchie, I will make manifest by plain demonstrations. And first I will retain this Principle sufficiently proved before, that Rome is the See of Antichrist, and that by authority of Scriptures, and consent of ancient Writers, we can seek him no where but in the Romaine Empire. And now the controversy resteth in this, whether the heathen Emperors or the Pope be he.

First, St. Paul, in the second chapter of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, speaking purposely of Antichrist, saith expressly, that he shall sit in the Temple of God, which is the Church of Christ. But it is manifest that the heathen Emperors did not sit in the Church of God, therefore the heathen Emperor is not this Antichrist. And by the same reason it is manifest, that Mohamet is not that especial Antichrist, because he sitteth without the temple of the God, as there be divers that would have these things be understood of Mahomet or Ottomanus: but it is clear as the Sunne at noone days; for as much as neither the heathen Emperors, nor Mahomet, nor Ottomanus sitteth in the Temple or Church of God, that none of them is the great Antichrist, of whom the prophecies of the Scripture are to be expounded.

And where some of them expound the abomination of desolation whereof Antichrist speaketh, to be meant of Antichrist, or at leastwise to be a sign of him, that cannot be understood of the heathen Emperors, or any that is without the Church: for the abomination must stand in the holy place which is in the Temple, which signifies the Church. Now the Pope sitteth in the midst of the Temple of God, and boasteth himself to be God, challenging to himself such authority as is proper only to God, and usurping such honour as is peculiar only to God. Therefore, not in the heathen Emperors, but in the Popes, is this prophecy accomplished.

Another reason to prove that Antichrist (which in this Revelation is foreshown to come into the world) cannot be understood of the heathen Emperors, is taken out of the seventeenth chapter of the same book: for there the Angel interpreting to St. John the mystery of the beast that beareth the harlot, which hath seven heads, signifying seven hills, he declareth also that they signify seven kings, or principle estates, or forms of regiment [government], for so the name of King is often taken in the Prophets and especially in Daniel, at which prophecy St. John borroweth many phrases. Of these seven heads, five, he saith, were fallen, the sixth was precisely then in authority, and the seventh was not yet come, which seventh was the monstrous beast, Antichrist, that was both the seventh and the eighth. Now it is evident that this could not be understood of the heathen Emperors: for Nero the first persecuting [Emperor] was come and gone, and Domitian, another persecutor (by whose tyranny St. John was banished into the Isle of Patmos, where he saw and received this Revelation) was then in authority: so that of the Monarchie or tyranny of heathen Emperors, this could not be understood, and of the Christian Emperors no man will expound it: so that it must needs be turned over to the Pope, for it can rest in no other place: and being referred unto him, all the rest [of this prophecy] have a very apt exposition.

For the city of Rome, and the dominions thereof, hath had seven principle states or forms of regiment [government]: the first state of Kings, the second of Consuls, the third of Decimvir, the fourth of Dictators, the fifth of Triumvir, the sixth of Caesars or Emperors, and the seventh of Popes. Now five of theses states or forms of regiment were fallen and abolished in St. John's time; the sixth, which was the Emperors, in John's time was in his place [already in office], and the seventh, which is the Popes, was not yet come, which was the very beast itself: the Romaine Empire revived and raised up from the bottomless pit of hell, into the usurped tyranny of the Pope. And this is that beast, that sometimes was of wonderful great power and glory in the days of Augustus, and other of his successors, but then much decayed, as if it had not been, although in some way it still existed, but that it should be restored in the usurped authority of the Pope, that claimeth that all the world to be his Diocese: which power cometh not from God, but from the Prince of pride, out of the bottomless pit. But chiefly, let us consider, that the beast although he be but one, yet in account standeth for two, for he is that seventh head and also the eighth. Remember that the Pope challengeth double authority, namely the power of both swords, the spiritual and the temporal. So that in this exposition all things agree most aptly.

Again, it is manifest in the Scriptures, that Antichrist should deceive the world with false doctrine, under pretence and colour of true religion, and therefore, so often times the Scripture warneth men that they should not be seduced by him: which warning is needless if any openly professed enemy of Christ should be that Antichrist. For there is no likelihood that an heathen man, a Jew or Turk should deceive any multitude of true Christians: but he that, under the pretence of the name of Christ, seeketh most of all to deface the honour of Christ, he is a subtle adversary, and the very spirit of Antichrist, as St. John, also in his Epistle doth testify. For in the second chapter speaking of those Antichrists, which were the forerunners of the great Antichrist, he sheweth they went out from the Church. And in the fourth chapter, he calleth them false Prophets, and teacheth men how to know the spirit of Antichrist: He that denieth Jesus to be the Christ, he that denieth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: that is, he that derogates anything from the honor of Jesus to be Christ, in his flesh [not] to have performed the full work of man's redemption, as does the Pope most blasphemously, he is Antichrist. And who so teacheth any such doctrine, speaketh by the spirit of Antichrist. For the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy. Seeing, therefore, that St. John accounteth Antichrist for one that is gone from the Church, and for a false Prophet, it is clear that Antichrist is no heathen Emperor, which was never of the Church, nor yet a false Prophet that took upon him to teach in the Church. The same may be said of Mahomet, who never professed himself to be a Christian, nor yet a Prophet in the Church of Christ, pretending to uphold the religion of Christ, but was an open enemy of the Gospel and our Savior Christ, and altogether without [outside] the Church. By these arguments I doubt not but all men may see that since Babylon is Rome, and that the head of Babylon is Antichrist, that he cannot be any of the heathen Emperors, but is the Pope himself. And therefore, I conclude according to my text, that Rome is fallen, if Babylon is fallen......." (pgs. 365-68.) 
________________________________________________________________

Francis Turretin: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin1.htm


----------



## Rand Winburn (May 3, 2004)

*Correction*

Please note the correct date of Perkins' sermon is 1595, not 1695.

Rand Winburn


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 3, 2004)

[quote:3f3cd9d773][i:3f3cd9d773]Originally posted by Rand Winburn[/i:3f3cd9d773]
Sadly, the absolute lack of understanding in the prophecies concerning the Antichrist are the result of a growing apostasy in the professing Protestant churches. The ordained pastors with formal schooling inherited their errors from seminaries and bible schools, the seed bed of erroneous doctrines. Dallas Theological Seminary is an excellent example of this. Satan has nearly extinguished the true understanding of prophecy, much to his glory, and to the dishonor of Christ and His Body, the saints, martyrs and prophets, who fought the good fight of faith against the known Antichrist for centuries. 

Either these great, distinguished men of God were correct and must be believed by lovers of truth, or they were devoid of wisdom and the Spirit, fooled by Satan, teaching lies for truth, and must be shunned as teachers not sent by God. 
[/quote:3f3cd9d773]

I suggest sir that you change your tone. As with Kenneth above, you are missing the issue in this debate. You seem to make the mark of a faithful teacher as one who can correctly identify Antichrist. But that is certainly not true. A faithful teacher is one who can preach Christ and Him crucified, faithfully. This discussion on the antichrist is done out of a desire to learn, not to declare one unorthodox because they don't agree with one historical interpretation of the identity of Antichrist. The main issue is not what some have historical held, but what do the Scriptures teach? This is an exegetical question being discussed by BELIEVERS. We are seeking truth, not to be pounded by those who disagree. If you cannot enter into this discussion with that mindset than please refrain from posting on this subject.


----------



## sastark (May 3, 2004)

*A pair of Questions...*

I'm not sure if this should be in a new thread, but my questions do have to do with the antichrist theme. Here they are:

Everybody knows that it was the universal belief of the Reformers and the Puritans that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist (he is that man of sin, that son of perdition who exalts himself, etc.). 

1- When did this belief stop being taught by reformed pastors? Who was the first notable reformed theologian to deny this and still claim to be reformed? I know the American revisions cut out the portion of the WCF that specifically identify the pope as the man of sin, but didn't a majority (or even all) the Presbyterians who revised the WCF still hold to that belief? (NOTE: I'm not saying that your opinion of who the antichrist is is some sort of litmus test of being reformed.)

2- For those of you who do not hold to the WCF on the bishop of Rome being the man of sin, how can you justify departing for the reformers on this point? I'm not saying the reformers were infallible - certainly they were men like the rest of us - but, how could every single one of them be wrong on this? And, how could they all be wrong in exactly the same way? (In other words, if they all had their own opinions on the identity of the man of sin, it would be easier, in my mind, to dismiss them one by one, but they all believed it was/is the pope. So, how do you dismiss this great cloud of witnesses?)

Anyway, trying to get this thread back to being congenial. As you all know, I agree with the WCF, but I know it is not a condition of salvation (maybe sanctification ) or of being reformed. So, let's here your responses.

PS- This is probably my favorite topic to discuss, since we can all agree that we are saved and reformed no matter what we believe about this topic.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 3, 2004)

[quote:8633ed0606][i:8633ed0606]Originally posted by sastark[/i:8633ed0606]
I'm not sure if this should be in a new thread, but my questions do have to do with the antichrist theme. Here they are:

Everybody knows that it was the universal belief of the Reformers and the Puritans that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist (he is that man of sin, that son of perdition who exalts himself, etc.). 

1- When did this belief stop being taught by reformed pastors? Who was the first notable reformed theologian to deny this and still claim to be reformed? I know the American revisions cut out the portion of the WCF that specifically identify the pope as the man of sin, but didn't a majority (or even all) the Presbyterians who revised the WCF still hold to that belief? (NOTE: I'm not saying that your opinion of who the antichrist is is some sort of litmus test of being reformed.)

2- For those of you who do not hold to the WCF on the bishop of Rome being the man of sin, how can you justify departing for the reformers on this point? I'm not saying the reformers were infallible - certainly they were men like the rest of us - but, how could every single one of them be wrong on this? And, how could they all be wrong in exactly the same way? (In other words, if they all had their own opinions on the identity of the man of sin, it would be easier, in my mind, to dismiss them one by one, but they all believed it was/is the pope. So, how do you dismiss this great cloud of witnesses?)

Anyway, trying to get this thread back to being congenial. As you all know, I agree with the WCF, but I know it is not a condition of salvation (maybe sanctification ) or of being reformed. So, let's here your responses.

PS- This is probably my favorite topic to discuss, since we can all agree that we are saved and reformed no matter what we believe about this topic. [/quote:8633ed0606]

I see the pope and Rome as an [i:8633ed0606]example[/i:8633ed0606] of antichrist(s). Assuredly, during the time of reform, Rome stood alot taller than at present. I am sure, that if we were able to challenge the charge leveled against Rome by the reformers, in that did they mean to imply that Rome was or is the [i:8633ed0606]only[/i:8633ed0606] antichrist, they probably would explain that at that time, it was Rome whom fit the mold and taht quite possibly there could even be more smaller illicit groups that could be considered [i:8633ed0606]antichrist(s)[/i:8633ed0606]........

I could be wrong. I know it's speculative at best. I agree with the WCF!

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2004)

Rand,
You do have a nice site
blade

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 3, 2004)

[quote:05e3927f4a][i:05e3927f4a]Originally posted by sastark[/i:05e3927f4a]
1- When did this belief stop being taught by reformed pastors? Who was the first notable reformed theologian to deny this and still claim to be reformed? I know the American revisions cut out the portion of the WCF that specifically identify the pope as the man of sin, but didn't a majority (or even all) the Presbyterians who revised the WCF still hold to that belief? (NOTE: I'm not saying that your opinion of who the antichrist is is some sort of litmus test of being reformed.)
[/quote:05e3927f4a]
I don't know who the first theologian was to depart form teh Reformers/Puritans. but I think the biggest influence was the fact that there were new religious developements within the Protestant churches which proved that there was more to the religion of Antichrist than simply Roman Catholicism. Rationalism was rearing it's ugly head at the time, and liberalism soon followed. 

[quote:05e3927f4a]
2- For those of you who do not hold to the WCF on the bishop of Rome being the man of sin, how can you justify departing for the reformers on this point? I'm not saying the reformers were infallible - certainly they were men like the rest of us - but, how could every single one of them be wrong on this? And, how could they all be wrong in exactly the same way? (In other words, if they all had their own opinions on the identity of the man of sin, it would be easier, in my mind, to dismiss them one by one, but they all believed it was/is the pope. So, how do you dismiss this great cloud of witnesses?)
[/quote:05e3927f4a]
The opinions of many in one period of time don't determine what is orthodox. If that were the case, then we would still be celebrating the Mass. What is important is our exegetical basis for coming to our conclusions. Using Perkin's quote above, I find some flaws in exegesis. One, he is using the lense of history to interpret that prophecy rather than comparing Scripture with Scripture. He claims the Pope fits the description of the one who would &quot;sit in the temple&quot; and on that point I agree. The Pope was certainly antichristian and corrupted the Church from within. But there are many more antichristian teachers like that today in the Church who could care less what the Pope thinks. 
And the question I have failed to see answered by those holding to the Reformers view on this is, how would this prophecy be any comfort to the first century Christians who first recieved this letter? We understand that we must interpret Paul and Peter's epistle's in their historical contexts first before deriving principle of application for us today. But for some reason, people seem to skip this step when trying to interpret Revelation. The book of Revelation would have very little application to first century Christians if the Pope was the Antichrist simple because there was no Pope. Perkins even admits this fact above. 
So there are some considerations to think about in interpreting the text. :wr50:


----------



## Len (May 3, 2004)

This brings a question to my mind - since the office of the Pope is that of Antichrist according to the first WCF - did they recognize Roman Catholic baptism (no groaning!) as being legitimate? I was told they did - so how could they hold the two together? Also, if anyone wants to throw out any materials where I could read about the history behind the WCF I'd be much obliged.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 3, 2004)

The Pope can't be the man of sin or Antichrist! After all, he gave us the &quot;greatest evangelism tool of the last 2,000 years&quot; !

 


By the way, I'm kidding.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 3, 2004)

Fred,
Whats scarey is that you have to actually post, &quot;I'm kidding&quot;!


----------



## Len (May 3, 2004)




----------



## fredtgreco (May 3, 2004)

[quote:4f2a5cee95][i:4f2a5cee95]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:4f2a5cee95]
Fred,
Whats scarey is that you have to actually post, &quot;I'm kidding&quot;! [/quote:4f2a5cee95]

Scott,

I know. After all you know me well, but not everyone else knows that I am a slave to the Confession, placing it above Scripture, stuck in the past, holder of man-made positions, etc. etc. :blah1: :blah1: 




By the way, I'm kidding again.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 3, 2004)

I have read most of you guys arguments and I think I am going with Bladestunner on this one. David Hasselhoff quite possibly could be the one. Hasselhoff that's German isn't it, hey maybe there is a link between him and Arnold.


----------



## staythecourse (May 3, 2004)

*My Pastor did antichrist yesterday*

I'll go over my notes and get back to you. I think he might have used Hasselhoff in an acronym


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2004)

Yes all we need is hasselhoff standing in a jewish tmepl in israel and were set. 

blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 3, 2004)

[quote:eaa9bf7df7][i:eaa9bf7df7]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:eaa9bf7df7]
Yes all we need is hasselhoff standing in a jewish tmepl in israel and were set. 

blade [/quote:eaa9bf7df7]
Ok. What do you guys have against the Night Rider?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2004)

See night rider he rides a at night signifies hes the anitchrist. Maybe we can invite him on the board and ask. Thats if he passes bootcamp


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 3, 2004)

At least he had a cool car!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2004)

Hey I still want Vaders armor


----------



## fredtgreco (May 4, 2004)

[quote:6f462127f2][i:6f462127f2]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:6f462127f2]
[quote:6f462127f2][i:6f462127f2]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6f462127f2]
At least he had a cool car!  [/quote:6f462127f2]

kit [/quote:6f462127f2]

Actually, KITT (Knight Industries Two Thousand)


----------



## andreas (May 4, 2004)

&lt;&lt;&lt;An excellent sermon, plainly proving that Rome is Babylon: and that Babylon is fallen&gt;&gt;&gt;

Yea,an excellent example of man's opinion without scriptural support.Not a single scripture to support his opinions.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 4, 2004)

&lt;&lt;&lt;Everybody knows that it was the universal belief of the Reformers and the Puritans that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist (he is that man of sin, that son of perdition who exalts himself, etc.). &gt;&gt;&gt;

Everybody?Not me.And where is your scriptural support?

&quot;For what saith the scripture&quot;?Rom.4:3

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 4, 2004)

You say that everybody knows that the office of the bishop of Rome is the antichrist.What do the scriptures say?

&quot; Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.&quot; 
1 John 2:22 

How can a human being be Antichrist ,since the verse tells us that anyone who denies the Father and the Son is Antichrist? There have always been those who deny the faith since the time of Christ. John wrote this some 2000 years ago,and as far as i know there is no human that can live for that period of time,unless you know something we do not. 
andreas


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 4, 2004)

[quote:6e4e57e5aa][i:6e4e57e5aa]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6e4e57e5aa]
At least he had a cool car!  [/quote:6e4e57e5aa]
See! that's what he wants you to think, careful now.


----------



## Saiph (May 4, 2004)

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time. And just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now [b:a356772cee]many[/b:a356772cee]antichrists have risen up, from which we know that it is the last hour. 
1Jo 2:19 [b:a356772cee] They[/b:a356772cee] went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they were of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out so that it might be revealed that they were not all of us. 
1Jo 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 
1Jo 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. 
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He who denies the Father and the Son is antichrist.


----------



## sastark (May 4, 2004)

[quote:572b2297b5][i:572b2297b5]Originally posted by andreas[/i:572b2297b5]
&lt;&lt;&lt;Everybody knows that it was the universal belief of the Reformers and the Puritans that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist (he is that man of sin, that son of perdition who exalts himself, etc.). &gt;&gt;&gt;

Everybody?Not me.And where is your scriptural support?

&quot;For what saith the scripture&quot;?Rom.4:3

andreas. [/quote:572b2297b5]

Andreas,

Please re-read the section of my post that you quoted. I was stating a historical fact, not a theological assumption. It [b:572b2297b5]was[/b:572b2297b5] the universal belief of the reformers that the pope is antichrist. I do not need to quote Scripture to prove this. That is like saying &quot;Show me in the Bible where is says Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941!&quot; 

Now, if you want to discuss, from Scripture, who the man of sin is, then I'd be glad to do that; however, a Bible verse is not needed to talk about history.


----------



## sastark (May 4, 2004)

[quote:363316592c][i:363316592c]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:363316592c]
The opinions of many in one period of time don't determine what is orthodox. If that were the case, then we would still be celebrating the Mass. What is important is our exegetical basis for coming to our conclusions. [/quote:363316592c]

Patrick,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. So, if I understand you correctly, the reason behind throwing out all the reforms/puritans was because they were all around at the same time? Or becuase they used bad exegesis? I am a bit leary of accusing the reformers of bad exegesis, simply because of all the other work they did correctly. As for them all being around at the same time, I've heard this before, but I don't think I buy it. 

[quote:363316592c]
Using Perkin's quote above, I find some flaws in exegesis. One, he is using the lense of history to interpret that prophecy rather than comparing Scripture with Scripture.
[/quote:363316592c]

Let me ask you this: Have all of the prophecies in the book of Revelation been fulfilled? Of course they have not. So then, how will we know when they are fulfilled? We will have to use history to judge when certain events take place. People who do not hold to the Reformed position simply start using history to interpret prophecy at a different point.

[quote:363316592c]
And the question I have failed to see answered by those holding to the Reformers view on this is, how would this prophecy be any comfort to the first century Christians who first recieved this letter? 
[/quote:363316592c]

This is a pretty common objection raised against the Reformed position, but I do not think it is valid, and here's why: If your argument is correct, how would any prophecy which was not fulfilled within the life span of the generation in which the prophecy was prophesied be of use to any one? How would Daniel's prophecies be useful to the Jews in his day? How would Isaiah's prophecies be useful to the Jews in his day? Do you see what I mean? Maybe Revelation was meant to be useful to more than one generation of Christians.


Food for thought.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 5, 2004)

[quote:9e63b0ebcb][i:9e63b0ebcb]Originally posted by sastark[/i:9e63b0ebcb]
[quote:9e63b0ebcb]
And the question I have failed to see answered by those holding to the Reformers view on this is, how would this prophecy be any comfort to the first century Christians who first recieved this letter? 
[/quote:9e63b0ebcb]

This is a pretty common objection raised against the Reformed position, but I do not think it is valid, and here's why: If your argument is correct, how would any prophecy which was not fulfilled within the life span of the generation in which the prophecy was prophesied be of use to any one? How would Daniel's prophecies be useful to the Jews in his day? How would Isaiah's prophecies be useful to the Jews in his day? Do you see what I mean? Maybe Revelation was meant to be useful to more than one generation of Christians.
[/quote:9e63b0ebcb]
Actually, that's what I'm trying to show you. It is useful to more than one generation. But you must understand it within the historical context for which it was written. It doesn't mean that the prophecies were fulfilled in that generation, but that generation was suppose to understand something from them. Isaiah, Daniel, and Jeremiah's prophecies don't make much sense unless you understand the historical circumstances behind them. They are using language which condescends to the people whom they are speaking to. Whenever we exegete passages, we must understand what is being spoken to the generation to whom it was written before we can apply to it us today. Otherwise we miss the whole point of the passage. We must do this with Revelation also. We cannot try to interpret it with our 20th century perspective (or 16th century). Was John trying to say the Antichrist is the Pope? I find that a stretch. There is no historical reference for Christians in that time to concieve of such a notion unless they returned their thoughts to the high priests of Judaism, but we have no reference to that (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no disagreement that the Pope is antichristian. And, there's probably no disagreement that the Pope most likely embodied the greatest spirit of antichrist during the Reformation. But that is not the case anymore. The spirit of antichrist is much greater in scope than Roman Catholicism.


----------



## Rand Winburn (May 5, 2004)

*The Truth Concerning the Antichrist*

Preterist Logician Paul Manata says:
"X denies Christ came in the flesh. Therefore, X is an antichrist. Now, plug ANYTHING into X and whatever you plugged in will complete the premise."

[u:9d2596a551]My response[/u:9d2596a551]:
The subject of this thread is not, 'Who is an antichrist?' Rather, it concerns the identity of THE ANTICHRIST: The one whom your namesake warns us in 2 Thess 2, and other citations; the one whom John warns us in the Revelation and 1 John 2:18, among other citations; the one whom Jesus warns us in Matt. 24, among other citations; and the one whom Daniel warns us in his 7th chapter, among other citations.

The prophecies pertaining to Antichrist are numerous and complex. They begin in Genesis and finish in Revelation. They detail his nature, character, sins, birthplace, time of birth, desires, heresies, cunning, deception, faithlessness, purpose, strategy, murders, temporal success, acclaim, religion, traditions, favorite colors and ultimate doom. The prophecies also reveal the identity of his father and master: Satan.

The prophecies concerning the Antichrist alert the Elect as to the identity of those who are actually of his flock, Satan's sheep. Those who are of his flock, Satan's sheep, do not believe he is the Antichrist. Instead, they look for another. The Pre-Reformation Christians, the Reformers and the Puritans did not need to look for another. They discerned he was already in their midst.

Belief in the truth of the matter concerning Antichrist is the gift of God to the Elect: 2 Thess. 2:13.
In fact, it is impossible to believe both that Jesus is the Christ and that the Pope is the Antichrist without direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. Both must be spiritually discerned. 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. 

Patrick said:
"I suggest sir that you change your tone......We are seeking truth, not to be pounded by those who disagree."

My response:
The Pharisees had similar problems with the 'tone' of Jesus. His disciples warned Him to 'tone it down,' for fear of reprisals against them......[i:9d2596a551]Then came his disciples, and said unto him, knowest that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?[/i:9d2596a551]
The truth offends many. Jesus Christ, Truth come in the flesh, was crucified because He was an offense. He dared tell the whole uncensored truth. Those who claimed to be His disciples left Him, offended by His words......[i:9d2596a551]Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is an hard saying: who can hear it?[/i:9d2596a551]

The topic of the Antichrist is one which has stirred controversy and heated discussion within the professing Christian Church from the beginning. For centuries God has had His true witnesses preach the truth of the matter, without thought to personal safety and political correctness, frequently dying a martyr's death for His cause. Please read Revelation 11 which depicts the Lord's true witnesses through the ages, as well as their ministry; their enemy; their murder; and their continued witness through others whom the Lord has raised up as a never-ending testimony against the Beast, the Antichrist.

Patrick declares:
"As with Kenneth above, you are missing the issue in this debate."

[u:9d2596a551]My response[/u:9d2596a551]:
Who is Kenneth? The issue is the identity of the Antichrist. This mystery, [b:9d2596a551]the mystery of iniquity[/b:9d2596a551], has been solved by Christians for centuries - before the Internet was invented. Thus, the real mystery is why today's educated, professing Christians do not believe the testimony of God's Elect, preserved for Christ's true church in every age?

Christ promises His Spirit is the Teacher, who will lead His people into all truth. Is not the identity of the Antichrist, hidden in the prophecies, truth which He wills His people know, understand and believe? Is not the Revelation called the Revelation because it is God's will that His people discern what He has revealed to His Church? Please note that 'to reveal' necessitates disclosing that which was hidden. In the Revelation and other prophecies, the Lord has revealed the mystery of the two Churches, the true and the false. This mystery first had its appearance in Genesis 3:15, with the disclosure of the two seeds or generations, Christ and His seed/Body vs. Satan and his seed/Body, who will be enemies forever. The Head of Christ's Body is Christ. The head of Satan's body is Antichrist. Satan's begotten son, the son of perdition, his false Christ, is his finest and most cunning deception, having taken centuries to raise him up to world renowned power and influence.

This feat is not to be taken lightly, for Satan could not have achieved such unbridled success without the affirmation of the Lord Himself.........but this fact begs the question, Why the Antichrist in the first place? Why does the Lord decree the existence of this arch-enemy? To what purpose does he serve?

The answer may be found in Deut. 13:1-3 and re-confirmed in 2 Thess. 2:1-12. In both instances, the Old Testament false prophet and New Testament Man of Sin are used to test the faith of the professing Christian, who claims to love God. Those who truly love the Lord will identify the false prophet/Man of Sin and refuse to follow or honor him as a brother in Christ. Instead, as Rev. 11 depicts, the true Christian will expose the false prophet/Beast for what he really is --- the Antichrist.

Thus, with this knowledge the discerning Christian is able to view the faith of other professing Christians, especially the 'educated' leaders in authority whose task it is to teach and feed the flock of Christ. Rev. Billy Graham, for example, the most renowned name in Christianity, second only to the Pope of Rome, fails this litmus test. The Reverend publicly declares his allegiance to the Pope as one he deems the greatest 'Man of the Twentieth Century.' By this astonishing statement Christ's Elect may determine Graham himself the seed of the Serpent, of the body of Antichrist, devoid of the Spirit of Christ, whose name is not written in the Book of Life, Rev. 13:8; Rev. 17:8.

Should Patrick or any other member of this board dare publicly pronounce the esteemed, beloved Billy Graham to be the Devil's prophet, belonging to Antichrist's body, and all those who follow him are doomed to be damned, they will soon discover the wrath of false Christianity and their eyes will be opened to the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The same holds true for daring to proclaim the Bishop of Rome in office is that very Antichrist predicted by Jesus and His Apostles, and confirmed by God's prophets through the ages.

Rand Winburn
Director
Protestant Reformation Publications
http://www.iconbusters.com


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 5, 2004)

Rand,
You write:
&quot;Should Patrick or any other member of this board dare publicly pronounce the esteemed, beloved Billy Graham to be the Devil's prophet, belonging to Antichrist's body, and all those who follow him are doomed to be damned, they will soon discover the wrath of false Christianity and their eyes will be opened to the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

The same holds true for daring to proclaim the Bishop of Rome in office is that very Antichrist predicted by Jesus and His Apostles, and confirmed by God's prophets through the ages. &quot;

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I don't see the argument..............Whats your point? Most all of us believe that Rome is an 'antichrist', and the Pope it's 'antichrist(ian)' leader. Most all of us agree that Billy G. is in error. The list could go on and on. This thread reminds me of Marc Carpenters &quot;Hall of Shame&quot; (http://www.outsidethecamp.org). Is this where you want it to go? That we should list 'our' antichrists publicly?

1 Cor 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Luke 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Luke 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
Luke 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.


[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 5, 2004)

Rand,

Please inform me as to your affiliation with the body of Christ - namely church and denomination - that has oversight over you.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 5, 2004)

[quote:8c67b58f15][i:8c67b58f15]Originally posted by Rand Winburn[/i:8c67b58f15]
The prophecies concerning the Antichrist alert the Elect as to the identity of those who are actually of his flock, Satan's sheep. Those who are of his flock, Satan's sheep, do not believe he is the Antichrist. Instead, they look for another. The Pre-Reformation Christians, the Reformers and the Puritans did not need to look for another. They discerned he was already in their midst. [/quote:8c67b58f15]
Did they discern? Or did they just think he was in their midst? Like I said before, you must deal with exegesis here Rand. Exegetically, how do you come to the conclusion that the Pope is the Antichrist using all those passages you refer to in passing? 

[quote:8c67b58f15]
Belief in the truth of the matter concerning Antichrist is the gift of God to the Elect: 2 Thess. 2:13.
In fact, it is impossible to believe both that Jesus is the Christ and that the Pope is the Antichrist without direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. Both must be spiritually discerned. 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. 
[/quote:8c67b58f15]
Here again Rand, you are assuming the Antichrist is the Pope. You have not yet proven that. Just because the Reformers thought so doesn't make it right. Please give me your exegetical grounds for your perspective.
[quote:8c67b58f15]
Patrick said:
"I suggest sir that you change your tone......We are seeking truth, not to be pounded by those who disagree."

My response:
The Pharisees had similar problems with the 'tone' of Jesus. His disciples warned Him to 'tone it down,' for fear of reprisals against them......[i:8c67b58f15]Then came his disciples, and said unto him, knowest that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?[/i:8c67b58f15]
The truth offends many. Jesus Christ, Truth come in the flesh, was crucified because He was an offense. He dared tell the whole uncensored truth. Those who claimed to be His disciples left Him, offended by His words......[i:8c67b58f15]Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is an hard saying: who can hear it?[/i:8c67b58f15]

The topic of the Antichrist is one which has stirred controversy and heated discussion within the professing Christian Church from the beginning. For centuries God has had His true witnesses preach the truth of the matter, without thought to personal safety and political correctness, frequently dying a martyr's death for His cause. Please read Revelation 11 which depicts the Lord's true witnesses through the ages, as well as their ministry; their enemy; their murder; and their continued witness through others whom the Lord has raised up as a never-ending testimony against the Beast, the Antichrist.
[/quote:8c67b58f15]
So you expect me to accept your interpretation and your tone as I would Jesus? I gave you a warning sir, and consider this another. Change your tone. You may pound your interpretation into us all you want, but you have yet to prove it. You assume that those who do not hold to your understanding are not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. You equate beleiving on Christ for salvation and believing in your interpretation of the Antichrist as equally important. But the Reformers and Puritans never went that far. If you wish to interact in any meaningful way with us in this discussion then you must change your attitude. We seek the truth in love. We understand here that all of us are resting upon Christ alone for salvation and seeking His guidance in understanding His word. If you cannot learn to interact with us as brothers, instead of enemies, then I suggest you go elsewhere to discuss these things. 

[quote:8c67b58f15]
The issue is the identity of the Antichrist. This mystery, [b:8c67b58f15]the mystery of iniquity[/b:8c67b58f15], has been solved by Christians for centuries - before the Internet was invented. Thus, the real mystery is why today's educated, professing Christians do not believe the testimony of God's Elect, preserved for Christ's true church in every age?
[/quote:8c67b58f15]
How was it solved? Just because martyrs may identify someone as the antichrist doesn't mean they are correct. I must rely in Scripture alone. So if you can't give me your exegesis then at least give me theirs. 

[quote:8c67b58f15] Should Patrick or any other member of this board dare publicly pronounce the esteemed, beloved Billy Graham to be the Devil's prophet, belonging to Antichrist's body, and all those who follow him are doomed to be damned, they will soon discover the wrath of false Christianity and their eyes will be opened to the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The same holds true for daring to proclaim the Bishop of Rome in office is that very Antichrist predicted by Jesus and His Apostles, and confirmed by God's prophets through the ages.
[/quote:8c67b58f15]
This final point doesn't prove anything either. If I were to call your pastor or beloved theologian Antichrist, then I too would be ridiculed. Just because someone would react to calling someone the antichrist doesn't prove they are beholden to the antichrist. Again, Rand, I'm trying to steer you in the right manner of discussing this. If you wish us to take you seriously, then you must slow down, change your attitude, and start back at square one. I'm trying to help you out here. I don't take the testimony of the Reformers or Puritans lightly. But their words must pass the test of Scripture as must yours.

So, let's try this one more time. Please show me how the first century Christians would understand these prophecies of the Antichrist. Then we will go from there.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 6, 2004)

the antichrist is anyone who says that Jesus did not come in the flesh and stay in the flesh, Greek perfect tence


1 John 4:2-3
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
NKJV


----------



## Roldan (May 7, 2004)

The Roman Catholic and its popes as system is THE antichrist, nero was the type and Rome is now the fullfilment

Glad to be back, been out a while

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Roldan (May 7, 2004)

[quote:52e6502148][i:52e6502148]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:52e6502148]
[quote:52e6502148][i:52e6502148]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:52e6502148]
The Roman Catholic and its popes as system is THE antichrist, nero was the type and Rome is now the fullfilment

Glad to be back, been out a while

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:52e6502148]

Roldan I thought you said you were a preterist? [/quote:52e6502148]


Already/not yet preterist.

In that Matt. 24 came to its typical fullfilment but its reality is coming. 

Didn't you say that you believed in a coming apostacy? If matt. 24 is FINALLY fullfilled including the apostasy mentioned then how could there be ANOTHER one?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 7, 2004)

I agree with you Roldan to some extent. I'm not against viewing the Pope as the Antichrist. I'm more inclined to agree with that actually. But I'm not convinced of the exegetical arguments to support that viewpoint yet. For instance, how do we connect Nero and the Pope? Nero was not someone standing within the temple. He can't be a &quot;type&quot; of the religious leader that would come because he doesn't qualify, he was never &quot;in the camp.&quot; See where I'm going. That's why I'm trying to get back to what the first century Christians were suppose to get out of this prophecy. This is why I'm thinking the Antichrist is much bigger than a civil or religious ruler, of whom I am inclined to think both Nero and the Pope are types.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 7, 2004)

did no one take my post seriously?? 

can someone give me a paragraph definition of preterism?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 7, 2004)

I believe preterism is that all or most of the prophecys were fufilled in ad 70 or is that amilluzzled:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 8, 2004)

Maybe this will help it looked decent enough:

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/An Introduction to Preterism.htm


----------



## VanVos (May 8, 2004)

[quote:fa00e0813c][i:fa00e0813c]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:fa00e0813c]
[quote:fa00e0813c][i:fa00e0813c]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:fa00e0813c]
Maybe this will help it looked decent enough:

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/An Introduction to Preterism.htm [/quote:fa00e0813c]

no.

that's from a hyper-pret understanding. [/quote:fa00e0813c]

Yep that HyperPreterism alright. I'm personally a partial preterist (or orthodox preterist) and believe the issue of the antichrist needs to be interpreted preteristically. 

VanVos


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 8, 2004)

oops see I didnt know it just said it was preterist.

blade sorry...


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 8, 2004)

I would love to offern an opinion but after reading all this I believe most of you would find me insane.


----------



## pastorway (May 8, 2004)

The member Rand Winburn has been banned for failure to abide by forum rules and for private coorespondence to the moderators indicating that the identity of antichrist is a test of orthodoxy. He made false accusations against the owners of the Puritan Board. Healso maligned several sound reformed denominations accusing them of changing the Word of God because they edited their confession of faith to remove the statement about the antichrist being the Pope. Changing or amending a confession is not the same as changing the Word of God. The Bible nowhere outright states that the Pope of Rome is the antichrist.

The Bible is clear that there have been and will continue to be many antichrists, and while some will say that the Pope is an antichrist, declaring such is not a litmus test for orthodoxy.

Rand has made the unfortunate mistake of becoming so fixated on the antichrist that I fear he has missed acting and speaking in a tone that honors Christ. We must preach Christ, and Him crucified - that in fact is the test of orthodoxy - the person and work of Jesus.

Turn your eyes upon [b:de680b2a19]Jesus[/b:de680b2a19]
Look full in His wonderful face
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim
In the light of His glory and grace

Phillip
[i:de680b2a19]Super Administator[/i:de680b2a19]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 22, 2006)

Maybe old news, but I see this provoked the casting of the PB as part of AntiChrist's photo album.
http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/photo_album/2/figure12.html


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 22, 2006)

Wow, what an old thread! I know agree with Paul M. that Nero was "the" anti Christ. I bet I get an e-mail from our friend asking me how I can believe that though!


----------



## CDM (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [b:ffb7ac2225]but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[/b:ffb7ac2225]
> 
> 13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22
> 14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4



Yes, I agree. 

There are 1700+ years that testify to this. The more able Historians here will confirm that many, if not most, of the Reformers thought it impossible that the Pope in Rome was not the Antichrist. 

Remember, he [antichrist] sets himself up in the temple of God. What is the temple of God? Is it not us [believers], the ones indwelled by the Spirit? The bride of Christ. The antichrist is primarily an impostor and a deceiver. A fake Christian claiming titles, and powers for himself that are rightfully God's. Yes, there are many antichrists, and there is THE antichrist, the final one to be revealed at the end.

Anyone care to speculate how "drunk" Nero got "with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus", and how drunk Rome's great impostor has gotten?


----------



## beej6 (Mar 22, 2006)

I believe there's also a sense where a person who's an antichrist is one who preaches a false gospel.

"œChildren, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2.18-22, ESV)

I always remember the following (especially in context of subscription to the WCF): "The pope is not *the* Antichrist, he's *an* Antichrist."

If you don't believe there are many antichrists, just check out the Trinity Broadcasting Network.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 31, 2006)

*The WCF*

Greetings:

The WCF has it correct. Though the Bible clearly teaches that there are many antichrists, 1 John 2:18,19, there will be a manifestation of one who embodies all of the antichristian traits - the pope of Rome.

The idea that Nero is the antichrist does not fit the Biblical criteria found in Rev. 13. There is no indication that Nero did any of the following things:

1) Caused the earth to worship the First Beast.
2) Made fire to come down from Heaven.
3) Deceptions through miracles.
4) Give life to the Image of the First Beast.
5) Caused all both small and great to receive a mark on their hand or forehead.
6) Forbade those who did not have the mark to buy and sell.

Most important of all the number 666 does not fit with Nero:

First, because John is writing in Greek to the Greek churches. Thus, to say that one has to figure the number in Hebrew gematria would not make sense to Greek speaking people.

Second, in order to fit the name of Nero into 666 one has to add an "n" at the end of his name: "Neron Caesar" is how the number is calculated from the name. The second "n" though is called a "final n" which is calculated as 700. Thus, "Neron Casear" is calculated in Hebrew as 1316 - not 666. (Those who say that the 5 finals in Hebrew came at a later time cannot answer the question as to how the Hebrews calculated 700, 800, 900 etc before then).

The Bible gives us no indication that Hebrew gematria should be used in calculating the name. The idea that Nero was the antichrist was a ruse used by the Jesuits in order to deflect attention from the Pope.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 31, 2006)

_The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Anti-Christ_ by Kim Riddlebarger.



Good book.


----------



## CDM (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CalvinandHodges_
> Greetings:
> 
> The WCF has it correct. Though the Bible clearly teaches that there are many antichrists, 1 John 2:18,19, there will be a manifestation of one who embodies all of the antichristian traits - the pope of Rome.
> ...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Aug 31, 2006)

What is their proof that the Pope is going to be the anti-Christ? If anything, I would say the Pope would be the false prophet. But seriously, with the damage that has been done to the RC church over the years, does anyone honestly think they are going to have much pull, credibility, or authority over the WORLD? They can't even recruit priests right now, let alone rule the world and be the "church" of the anti-Christ.

It is my understanding that Luther and the Reformers just despised the Pope and that's why they called him the anti-Christ. Maybe I'm wrong...but maybe I'm right.


----------



## Ravens (Aug 31, 2006)

Actually I was going to ask a question concerning the historic Reformed view of the antichrist, so I'm glad somebody had already decided to bump this up today.

Eschatology has never been a topic of terrible interest to me. Not that I am in any way, shape, or form taking away from its importance. I just usually only give one or two doctrines serious thought during any phase of learning.

But over the past couple weeks (I'll leave the arguments out, as they have already been posted) I've just been... incredibly convinced of the historic Reformed view of the Antichrist, so much so that I'm wondering how I ever managed to "miss it" before.

Most of the sites and articles I've found are very brief... and I'm not good at googling Reformed resources online (I still haven't gotten over graduation and losing my school library...), but:

I know the Reformed tradition sees the papacy as the fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2. Is "the beast" figure in Revelation also equated with the same personage? At least historically?

And this is purely a fanciful thought to which I am attaching exactly " 0 " significance (since it came from my head), but: Is there a "consensus" among historic Reformed divines as to the nature of the "head wound"? Have any ever taken that to refer to the Reformation?

Also, what are the best full-length books on the subject, if any, from this perspective?

Much obliged.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 31, 2006)

Josh -- I would recommend the following resources for your studies on this subject: 

Francis Turretin's _Seventh Disputation: Whether it can be proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist_
J.A. Wylie's _The Pope of Rome is the Antichrist_
Thomas Manton's Eighteen Sermons on 2 Thessalonians 2 on the Description, Rise, Growth and Fall of Antichrist
James Begg's _Popery in Scripture_

There is a lot more that is worth reading, but that should be a good start. Hope this helps, brother!


----------



## Peter (Aug 31, 2006)

Virtually all the reformers and puritans would agree the Papacy is the AntiChrist and the Man of Sin. 

Most believe that the Papacy is the Beast. Some believe that the Beast (of the Sea) is the secular Roman Empire (comparing it with Dan 7) while the False Prophet Beast is the Papacy. One opinion is that the First Beast is the Papacy while the 2nd (prophetical) Beast is the Romanish clergy. 

One opinion of the wound to the beast's head I am familiar with, according to the interpretation that the Beast is the Roman Empire, is that its heads are the seven forms of governments Rome had, the wound being the fall of Rome in the 5th century and the revial being the resurrection in the Holy Roman Empire. (to the best of my memory thats how it goes)

One way to gain a sort of broad, yet superficial, knowledge of reformed eschatology is to read the easy popular level commentaries of the Reformers and Puritans. Gill, Henry, Calvin are all available free on the internet or as a download. Poole is worth buying. Probably the most indepth book I've read is Alexander Macleod's Lectures on the Principal Prophecies of Scripture. Most of it is online or you can buy a copy used. it is surprisingly cheap for a book nearly 200 years old. It must have been very popular in its day. Also I highly recommend Edward's History of the Work of Redemption for a general overview. I think its also online.


----------



## rjlynam (Aug 31, 2006)

Wasn't the Book of Revelation written to contemporaries (Rev 1:4)?

If so, would not the message have been contemporary (relevant to the hearing audience) in nature?

John starts the letter by saying "the things which must shortly take place" (1:1) and "the time is near" (1:3) and finally wraps up the letter with "to show his bond-servants the things which must shortly take place" (22:6).

What good would a letter be that wouldn't even be applicable for hundreds of years? 

NERO gets my vote, until I can be otherwise convinced.


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mudandstars_
> I know the Reformed tradition sees the papacy as the fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2. Is "the beast" figure in Revelation also equated with the same personage? At least historically?



Yes; and there is no doubting that papal Rome's assumption of the temporal power of pagan Rome together with its usurping of the prerogatives of Jesus Christ over the church is a significant fulfilment of the beast figure.



> And this is purely a fanciful thought to which I am attaching exactly " 0 " significance (since it came from my head), but: Is there a "consensus" among historic Reformed divines as to the nature of the "head wound"? Have any ever taken that to refer to the Reformation?



Yes, I have read some who have taken it that way, but there are conflicting views. The chronological historical view suffers from the fact that the variety of schemes all sound plausible. Which led me to adopt the ideal historicist scheme, that what we find in Revelation can find multiple applications throughout history.



> Also, what are the best full-length books on the subject, if any, from this perspective?



Andrew has referenced Wylie's book. It is very good. The principles of prophetic interpretation are first illustrated in reference to the coming of Christ, and then it is shown how the same principle, when applied to the coming of Antichrist, must point to the Papacy. If a more easy reading work is desired, Paisley's abridgment of Wylie retains all the essential features of the original work. Begg's Handbook of Popery is also highly recommended. Manton's is sermonic material, and probably provides the best practical application, but if you are looking for exegetical proof alot of sifting will be needed.


----------



## Peter (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rjlynam_
> Wasn't the Book of Revelation written to contemporaries (Rev 1:4)?
> 
> If so, would not the message have been contemporary (relevant to the hearing audience) in nature?
> ...



The book was written to the whole church throughout the entire NT era. which is why it is in the canon of scripture. One might ask, why has God put this book in the bible if it is only for first century christians? 

Historicists do believe that the prophecies of Revelation will shortly come to pass, or, that is, the fulfilment of the earliest prophecies in the apocolyptic chronology will begin shortly after it was written. Which is why many Historicists believe the wars of Trajan and Adrian are prophecied or even sometimes earlier events. But because the prophecy will _begin_ shortly that does not mean it will end shortly. Everyone short of hyper-preterists believes this. If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 31, 2006)

^


----------



## rjlynam (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> The book was written to the whole church throughout the entire NT era. which is why it is in the canon of scripture. One might ask, why has God put this book in the bible if it is only for first century christians?
> 
> Historicists do believe that the prophecies of Revelation will shortly come to pass, or, that is, the fulfilment of the earliest prophecies in the apocolyptic chronology will begin shortly after it was written. Which is why many Historicists believe the wars of Trajan and Adrian are prophecied or even sometimes earlier events. But because the prophecy will _begin_ shortly that does not mean it will end shortly. Everyone short of hyper-preterists believes this. If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come.



First of all, let me say that I don't consider myself a hyper-preterist, although my mom has told me I was hyper as a kid. I do consider myself teachable though.

That being said, I'm not so sure that the premise "If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come." is accurate. On what basis is that statement made? Christ's pronouncement in the Olivet discourse? Specifically, Matthew 24:30 (The Sign of the Son of Man)? 

Always looking to learn here.


----------



## Peter (Aug 31, 2006)

To be clear, I meant that if all of the prophecies of the book of Revelation must have come to fulfillment shortly after it was written then the literal, physical seconding coming of Christ must also be past. I believe Christ came in judgment against the Jews in 70 AD but that is a separate event (which happened before Revelation was written by the way)


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 1, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you mean.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 1, 2006)

So IF as some believe Nero was the antichrist, then I guess all of those alive today missed the 1000 year reign of Christ, as one thousand nine hundred and thirty six years have already gone by.

Now, I don't believe a pope will be the anti-Christ, but I do believe a pope could be the False Prophet, who will point to some man to be the Messiah.

United Religions (UR).

One reason, I believe the anti-Christ will be a man is because that is what the Jew's are looking for in a Messiah, a man from the line of David who will bring peace to the world and how they will be decieved by a peace agreement.


Messiah


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 1, 2006)

Is the "thousand" spoken of in Rev 20:6 to be taken literally?

Is so, then consider Psalm 50:10. Who owns the cattle on hill 1001?

Is it safe to assume "literally" one thousand years in a Book so filled with symbolism?

Just something to ponder.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 1, 2006)

rjlynam,




> Is the "thousand" spoken of in Rev 20:6 to be taken literally?



I would think so, as the verses in Chapter 20 teach that the Saints will reign with Him for that 1000 year time frame.



> Is so, then consider Psalm 50:10. Who owns the cattle on hill 1001?



God owns it..



> Is it safe to assume "literally" one thousand years in a Book so filled with symbolism?



I don't see why not, If God is timeless and we are not. Because that will be a time after the great tribulation, and those who survived through the tribulation will still be alive in their bodies of flesh. And after the 1000 year reign of Christ, Satan will be loosed again from the bottomless pit (Rev 20) to decieve the nations yet again. 

Is there anything in History that speaks of a time where people had to recieve a mark in their forehead or hand? As spoken of in Rev 20:4?


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 1, 2006)

I find it hard to be a "literalist" in a Book with so much symbolism. Just a difference of opinion here. 

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by rjlynam]


----------



## BJClark (Sep 1, 2006)

United Religions


Prince Charles --"Defender of the faith??


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> United Religions
> 
> 
> Prince Charles --"Defender of the faith??




What is this, but another example of what the Psalmist refers to in Psalm 2?

Please clarify what you mean by citing your links.


----------

