12606RE: [Covenanted Reformation]No AntiChrist Alive and Pope John Paul
- Apr 4, 2005What do we do now that there is no living "Pope?"There is always a living Pope; hence, there is always a man of sin. The next one in the dynasty just hasn't been formally crowned yet.God has decreed that the Antichrist - a dynasty of "Latin men" (Lateinos) would:
......from the days of the removal of the Roman Empire, until the return of Jesus Christ.That being the case, the succession is never broken, and the world is never "Antichrist-free," just because one man of sin dies, and some time elapses before the next one is crowned. Judas Iscariot was the son of perdition, even before Christ called him such in John 17:12...because he was prophesied to be so. Even when he was first selected as an Apostle, before his betrayal of Christ, he was the son of perdition. He certainly didn't find himself "falling" into the role.In Christ,Keith----- Original Message -----Sent: 4/3/2005 6:15:31 PMSubject: [Covenanted Reformation]No AntiChrist Alive and Pope John Paul
- sit in the professing Church (the temple of God),
- wear out the saints,
- trample their blood under foot,
- speak great blasphemies against the Most High,
- think to change times and laws,
- cause small and great, rich and poor, to receive a mark, &c., &c.
What do we do now that there is no living "Pope?" Do you believe
there is no AntiChrist now?
--- In email@example.com, "keith dotzler"
> To elaborate further:
> 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day [of Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away
first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
> 2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all
that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth
in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
> 2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with
you, I told you these things?
> 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he
might be revealed in his time.
> 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already
work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the
> 2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming:
> To summarize the chronology of events,
> There will be an apostasy from the faith, from which the man of
sin will rise.
> This man of sin will oppose and exalt himself above God, sitting
in the Temple of God (the Church), shewing himself to be God.
> The Thessalonians knew what was withholding the rise of this man
of sin, because Paul had told them orally.
> Once the thing that was withholding was removed, the wicked man of
sin would be revealed.
> This man of sin will be consumed with the Spirit of Christ's
mouth, and will be destroyed at his coming.
> Historically, we see that:
> It was the Church at Rome that apostatized from Biblical doctrine,
allowing doctrines of demons to infect it, leading to the ascendancy
of its Bishops to a place of tyrannical power.
> It was the Bishop of Rome who exalted himself above God, sitting
in the visible Church (the Temple of God), claiming to be Christ's
VICAR; nay, God himself (NOTE: the prefix anti means "in the place
of," or "to oppose;" hence, the Bishop of Rome, by claiming to be
Christ's "VICAR" (which also means "in the place of"), is readily
identifying himself as the ANTI-Christ!).
> It was the Roman Empire that restrained the rise of the Bishop of
Rome (Pope), because the two could not rule from Rome
simultaneously. Once Constantine moved the seat of the Empire to
Byzantium (creating Constantinople) in 333, and after persecuting
Christians was outlawed via the Edict of Milan in 313, and after the
Bishop of Rome was "granted" sovereignty over the Latin and Italian
territories via the fictitious "Donation" of Constantine, and once
the Roman Empire was divided into 10 kingdoms (ten toes) via
Barbarian invasions in the late 5th century, the Bishop's rise to
all-powerful supremacy became inevitable.
> The saints throughout history recognized the mutation that
occurred after the Empire was moved East, wherein the once humble
pastors of the Church at Rome morphed into power-hungry, tyrannical,
idolatrous, murderous Popes. The early Church Fathers also knew
that the man of sin would rise once the Empire fell, which is why
they prayed for its continued existence.
> Therefore, (A) as the "let" was the Roman Empire that was "taken
out of the way" in 333 A.D.; and (B) as Christians for centuries
have recognized the man of sin to be the Bishops who ascended the
Roman throne after the Empire's removal; and (C) as the mark of the
beast, (D) the worshipping of the beast's image, (E) the murdering
of the saints have all been going on for centuries; the consuming
and destroying, then, with which the Beast and false prophet are met
at Christ's coming, cannot refer to just ONE Pope and ONE false
prophet, nor to their soul-less "offices," but to the entire
succession of men.
> "And the beast [a.k.a. man of sin, a.k.a. little horn, a.k.a. the
Antichrist] was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received
the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These
both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
> See also Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's image,
wherein ONE represents MANY.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: keith dotzler
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: 4/3/2005 12:32:09 AM
> Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Pope John Paul is dying
> There are problems with your line of reasoning. For example:
> When you say,
> "This is clearly refering [sic] to one point in time in which the
PAPACY (as opposed to ALL THE POPES as if there were some
resurection [sic] of them at that time) will fall into distruction
> ...are you willing to follow that thought to its logical
conclusion, and tell us the forty-two months that the beast/man of
sin/antichrist/little horn was prophesied to wear out the saints and
trample their blood under foot is, therefore, restricted to a
literal 42 months, being the last 3 1/2 years before Christ's
> As I said in my first post in this thread, the OFFICE cannot be
destroyed without destroying the office-HOLDERS. The men are cast
into hell, not the office, which has no soul.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: 4/2/2005 10:04:46 PM
> Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Pope John Paul is dying
> Don't the biblical predictions of Antichrist refer to the office
> the Pope in such a way that John Paul the Second is the Antichrist
> inasmuch as he bears the office of pope?
> If the individual popes (as bad as they are) were the Antichrist
> each of them would have to have individually experienced God's
> judgement predicted in Second Theselonians 2 which says that he
> be consumed by the spirit of His mouth and destroyed by the
> brightness of His coming. This is clearly refering to one point in
> time in which the PAPACY (as opposed to ALL THE POPES as if there
> were some resurection of them at that time) will fall into
> distruction before the worldwide millenial gospel peace which is
> before Christ returns.
> It seems to me that he could reject his office. And this wouldn't
> mean that God's decree is failing since it is the papacy which is
> Antichrist. It would be sinful on the other hand to pray for the
> Papacy (the office) to turn into a calvinistic presbytery which
> submits to scripture alone because the Anchrist which is predicted
> fall is the Papacy and so it will never be righteous. And while we
> can pray for individual Roman Catholics to repent we cannot pray
> the Catholic Church to repent since it is the Great Whore.
> I am not denying the fact that all of the popes are evil and in
> popish state would end up in hell (unless they repent and die
> they had the chance to reject the office). I am also not denying
> fact that if the Pope did commit the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost
> we can't put that past him) that he shouldn't be prayed for. I
> know enough about this but could it be argued that the process of
> becoming a pope involves an action which would be blasphemy of the
> Holy Ghost?
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Children International
> Would you give Hope to a Child in need?
> �Click Here to meet a Girl
> And Give Her Hope
> �Click Here to meet a Boy
> And Change His Life
> Learn More
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>