Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11631Re: [Covenanted Reformation] True Lutheran (the Dr. on the conversion of Paul)

Expand Messages
  • Keith Dotzler
    Oct 31, 2004
      Dr. Letis,
      I appreciate the kind words; however, I did not write those things (though I, like you, most definitely agree with them).  That entire article can be found at the link I provided, which is brother Rand Winburn's site.  He is the author of all comments, outside of Luther's.  He also wrote the following, speaking of Sproul, which is a lengthy excerpt from his invaluable book entitled, Antichrist In Our Midst.
      God bless you, and happy reading!
      A Significant and Very Scary Recent Example Of Revisionism in Church History

      Presbyterian Church in America and R. C. Sproul Guilty of Spiritual Sabotage

      By Rand Winburn

      Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; and hid that shall not be known

      It's bad enough when organizations are formed and books are written contending the Holocaust never occurred. This despite eyewitness accounts by survivors and their liberators, all with extensive collaborating film footage. Not to mention the inexplicable disappearance of 6 million Jews. But when the denial and cover-up comes from the camp of orthodox professing Evangelical Christians, the incredulity is magnified one hundred fold.

      In December, 1973, the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America met in Birmingham, Alabama, to adopt the classic Westminster Confession of Faith, with its Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the doctrinal standards of the Church.

      "The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred, and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist.

      By a single deliberate stroke of the pen, the arch enemy of Christ and His saints, declared so from Genesis through Revelation, has now been declared, through the wicked councils of men, to be the enemy no more. The implications of this futile and wicked action are manifold and frightening. The PCA has declared it is wiser than God, who has been in error for centuries. God has lied for centuries, as has His people. The martyrs died senselessly for a lie. Roman Catholicism and her Beast are really not so bad. The Beast has been telling the truth all along: he is not the Antichrist, look for another. Thus, the true Christians killed by the Church of Rome were heretics after all. The sheep of the PCA fold no longer need be warned of the Man of Sin, the son of perdition. Does the reader shiver at the power of the deceivableness of unrighteousness, this mystery of iniquity? Sleep on, drunken prophets, sleep on. Believe the delusion. But know this:

      "The elect shall stand steadfast and safe from all these mischiefs."

      What the X-Rated 1647 Westminster Confession Unashamedly Said

      In 1534, William Tyndale identified and exposed the papal Antichrist in his annotated New Testament. In 1602, the Geneva Bible translators identified and exposed the papal Antichrist. In 1611, the King James Bible translators identified and exposed the papal Antichrist. In 1647, the Westminster divines identified and exposed the papal Antichrist in no uncertain terms. Today that same confession has been snipped, trimmed, excised and edited for PG consumption by the PCA. Not to be outdone, the apostate Presbyterian U.S.A. denomination, however, has completely rewritten the Creed to earn a lukewarm 'G' rating, offensive to no one, not even sinners. WARNING!! The following citation may offend small-minded adults, children and the ignorant in Christ:

      "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

      Can the astute reader recognize the phraseology of II Thess.2 in this blessed creedal position? What this present author finds particularly shocking is the utter disdain for this portion of the Creed on the part of R. C. Sproul and his Reformed help meets. His New Geneva Study Bible quotes The Westminster Confession when teaching on 'Effectual Calling' (II Thess.2:14). Yet ten verses earlier (v.4), Mr. Sproul is silent as to who, exactly, it is who exalts himself in the temple of God. All he and his panel of religious experts need do was quote from the same uncensored Confession, Chapter 25, Paragraph 6, and the correct answer as to the identity of the Man of Sin would have been forthcoming to themselves and their untold thousands of faithful readers and supporters. But no, for if they had been truthful, then there would no longer be a mystery to the mystery of iniquity.

      The Mystery and Iniquity of Sproul's Gloss of II Thess.2:

      A Simple Comparison of Original and Modern Commentaries on the Same Prophetic Passages

      It is truly shocking and eye-opening to discover what the Christians of the past taught and believed. The differences are immense. They knew the doctrines of grace, doctrines which are suppressed in today's professing Church. They also knew the identity of Antichrist and his church another important teaching covered-up in the Church today. Of particular interest to this present writer is the depth of the cover-up. That it extends to the leadership of a major segment of the Reformed camp is quite telling. For when we compare the 1602 Geneva Annotated New Testament, written by Protestants engaged in fierce spiritual warfare, with the 1995 New Geneva Study Bible, written by Protestants engaged in little spiritual warfare, living the most comfortable existence known to man, we see a most serious discrepancy.

      Let us first cite II Thess.2:3 in full:

      "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition."

      We now cite the gloss on this passage from the same ancient Bible edition:

      "The Apostle foretelleth that before the coming of the Lord, there shall be a throne set up clean contrary [i.e., completely contrary] to Christ's glory, wherein that wicked man shall sit, and transfer all things that pertain to God, to himself, and many shall fall away from God to him. By speaking of one [man of sin] he pointeth out the body of the tyrannous [i.e., tyrannical] and persecuting Church."

      May the reader note the following observations made in A. D. 1602:

        1. Christ comes once, after the Man of Sin is revealed.

        2. The Man of Sin shall usurp Christ's offices, opposing Christ.

        3. The Man of Sin is the head of a tyrannical, persecuting, apostate Christian church.

      We now cite the modern 1995 New Geneva Study Bible:

      "This might refer to a falling away of many within the church, to an apostasy of the Jewish people, or to a worldwide rebellion against God. [The] man of sin is an individual embodiment of wickedness, whose arrogant blasphemies Paul lists. He will draw away by deception those already inclined against the true God and will ultimately commit the sacrilege of thrusting himself upon humanity as its object of worship. He comes by the power of Satan, as Christ came by the power of God, and he works fraudulent wonders as Christ worked true ones. Paul depicts this imposter as a parody or antithesis of the true Christ. Paul himself does not use the term 'antichrist,' but it is a fitting designation. His fate is sealed; he will be destroyed by the coming of Christ."

      Like the original 1602 edition, the New Geneva gloss has Christ returning once to destroy the Man of Sin. He is identified as 'antichrist.' He will parody Christ, working lying wonders. But of serious omission here is the identity of this man of sin. This crucial fact is of critical importance to the Church. And yet despite the numerous Protestant scholars contributing to this work, they are without a clue as to whom Paul is referring! There is also confusion as to what, exactly, is the falling away.

      Let us continue with the 1602 edition translation of verse 4:

      "Which is an adversary, and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doeth sit as God in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

      Now follows the original gloss:

      "All men know who he is that sayeth he can shut up heaven and open it at his pleasure, and took upon him to be Lord and Master above all kings and princes, before whom kings and princes fall down and worship, honouring that Antichrist as a god. He [Paul] foretelleth that Antichrist (that is, whosoever shall be that shall occupy that seat that falleth away from God) shall not reign without the Church, but in the very bosom of the Church."

      These 16th - 17th century Reformers have just given their contemporaries invaluable information:

        1. They have positively identified the Man of Sin as the Pope, who claims to hold the keys of Peter, who sits in the bosom of the apostate Church, the one fallen away from the true faith.

        2. They have included every pope in the succession of popes as the Man of Sin, Antichrist, because of the seat of authority each occupies; i.e., the Papacy. Thus, the Man of Sin is a dynasty of men who hold the papal office, one man at a time.

        3. Their exhortation, all men know who he is, alarmingly no longer applies, as the mystery of iniquity spins its web of confusing and conflicting theories about the minds of today's self-professed prophecy 'experts.'

      Now we compare the 1995 gloss:

      "This description of the man of sin echoes that of Daniel's little 'horn' and foreshadows John's description of the beast from the sea."

      This particular comment has value in linking Paul's Man of Sin with Daniel's little horn and John's beast from the abyss. Let us continue with the commentary:

      "Some conclude from this verse that the temple of Jerusalem, still standing when Paul wrote but destroyed in A. D. 70, must be rebuilt for the use of the 'man of sin.' Others understand 'temple' in another way of its New Testament meanings, as the church. The reference may be an intentionally exaggerated way of talking about the imposter's aspirations to heavenly power. Just as another prototype of sin, the king of Babylon wanted to set his throne in heaven, so the man of sin will boast of himself as the possessor of God's heavenly sanctuary."

      Once again, our Reformed modern-day prophecy experts are all over the playing field. They are mystified as to the identity of this man of sin, offering to the reader no solid solution to the mystery. Instead, they rehearse some of the interpretations of the orthodox Protestants (without mentioning their solution that the pope is that man of sin) and the interpretations which counter the Protestants, offered by the Jesuits. If a literal temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem, then the Man of Sin is yet to come. Satan loves that Jesuitical interpretation. The commentators hurry through the orthodox explanation (disregarding the dire implications if true), that the temple refers to the New Testament Christian church, when they suggest a third preposterous theory: it is pure hyperbole and not to be taken in a realistic sense.

      We move now to the ancient 1602 version of verse 6:

      "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time."

      We follow with their original gloss on this verse:

      "What hindereth and stayeth."

      The Genevan Reformers are soon to explain what it is that withholdeth, hindereth and stayeth. Verse 7 states:

      "For the mystery of iniquity doeth already work: only he which now withholdeth, shall let until he be taken out of the way."

      They explain:

      "Even in the Apostles time the first foundations of the Apostolical seat were laid, but yet so they deceived men. He [Paul] foretelleth, that when the empire of Rome is taken away, the seat that falleth away from God, shall succeed and hold his [i.e., the Roman emperor's] place, as the old writers, Tertullian, Chrysostom and Jerome so expound it."

      The 1602 commentary further elaborates that the phrase, he which now withholdeth, is to be understood as "he which is in authority and ruleth all, to wit, the Roman Empire." These wise expositors understood that the Man of Sin would sit in an Apostolic seat in the Church, which is exactly what is claimed by the popes: they claim to sit in the Apostolic seat of Peter, the first pope. These same ancient Reformers had no confusion over the identity of the let. It was the Roman Empire with its emperor which must be removed before the Man of Sin could sit in the same seat, becoming the Holy Roman Apostolic emperor. Let us see what our modern version says of the same texts:

      "The identity of what is 'restraining' the man of sin is no longer self-evident to the readers of 2 Thessalonians. Interpreters have proposed numerous alternatives. The restraining power seems to be both impersonal and personal. Hence it may be an institution that can also be represented by a single person, such as the Roman state with its emperor, the Jewish state with its leader, or the universal ministry of the gospel with Paul as its chief minister. Whatever the precise reference, it is clear that behind the restraining power is the will of God."

      What isn't self-evident to these modern prophets was clear as crystal to the Genevan Protestants and early church Fathers. They knew who and what was restraining. But our contemporary Protestant scholars do not wish to share that vital information with their studious readers. Instead, they float the truth in a morass of Preterism and Futurism, silently assenting to all the arguments posed originally by Jesuits. The 1995 gloss continues:

      "Though the man of sin has not yet appeared, Paul will not allow his readers to let down their guard. The same satanic power that will ultimately spawn this unholy deceiver was already at work in Paul's day and is at work in ours. Because it is now restrained, the church has a strong encouragement to carry out its mission."

      This is the gloss which lets us know where our 20th century Protestant brethren really stand: Antichrist is not yet come! He will ultimately appear, but is now restrained. Here we see where the New Geneva Study Bible repudiates, denies and contradicts the original Geneva Bible, 1602 edition, thus manifesting that Sproul and company are in no way, shape or form truly Reformed in the very important area of eschatology and prophecy. Let the reader hear the hypocrisy in R. C. Sproul's Introduction to his Study Bible:

      "The New Geneva Study Bible contains a modern restatement of Reformation truth in its comments and theological notes. Its purpose is to present the light of the Reformation afresh…….The distinctive ideas of the Reformed are the result of accepting the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice."

      What Mr. Sproul neglected to state was that he and his compatriots will restate only certain portions of Reformation truth. Let the reader beware. For one of the key distinctive ideas of the Reformation was that of identifying the Man of Sin with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church with Mystery Babylon. It was through this extremely vital revelation that Luther and company separated from the Catholic Church, realizing full well that the prophecies did not allow for her to repent or reform. Thus, union with the Church of Rome was impossible and outside the revealed will of God, who called fellowship with her drunken fornication.

      By exposing this incredible cover-up by well respected and recognized leaders in the Church, we find that Satan and his vicar do, indeed, have the power to deceive the very elect, if that were possible.

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 3:20 AM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] True Lutheran (the Dr. on the conversion of Paul)

      Many thanks for posting what you did just before Reformation Sunday. I totally agree with what you wrote here:

      Ligonier Ministry's Table Talk Opposes the Prophetic Views of the One Who is Their Publication's Namesake

                  Here we seen more clear evidence of the hypocrisy of R. C. Sproul's so-called 'Reformed' ministry. They purposely suppress knowledge of Luther's Historicist view which unflinchingly teaches the Papacy is the Antichrist and his church, Mystery Babylon. Nor do they believe Luther and the innumerable witnesses through the Church ages, including the millions of those martyred, who agree with Luther's prophetic wisdom. Sproul's New Geneva Study Bible also intentionally covers-up the views of the very Genevan Reformers it claims to represent.[17] These facts are overriding proof of the intentional cover-up of Church history, suppression of the testimony of the saints and martyrs, willful unbelief and apostasy in this end times professing Christian Church.

      Thank you for saying this. I absolutely agree with you. Both Sproul, his Preterism, and the Entire Reconstructionist Movement also, which also denies the very Calvin they claim to be following on this issue of the Antichrist, are paving the road back to Rome. I thought I was the only one saying this, but I see others have also been shown the truth.

      I am to give a power-point presentation this day at a PCA church that thinks Sproul a "prophet," on the healing of the deadly wound of the Antichrist which is taking please even as I type in Europe, and soon here...

      Theodore P. Letis

      Keith Dotzler <keipen@...> wrote:



      Martin Luther Testifies to the Papal Abomination of

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

    • Show all 3 messages in this topic