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

16520Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Mark of the Number of the Name of the Beast video

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    Oct 2, 2008

      Hi Larry my friend!!

      In as much that I agree with you that Scripture trumps all, but I am not sure if 2 Thess. 2  "refute[s] what *some* maintain, that "antichrist" may only properly refer to the Pope".

      Thomas Boston has preached on this topic and calls Popery and the Pope that very Antichrist upon examination of this very text:



      Scripture interepting Scripture leads us to the conclusion that the Papacy is that specific AntiChrist (...sits in the Temple of God...built on 7 hills...all refer to the Pope / Papacy)

      Sure enough that there are many other antichrists...i.e JW's, Mormons, Scientologists, &etc, but the one that is that very Son of Perdition is the Pope.  Judas Ischariot was his fore-runner...

      ...I by the way hold to 24 / 7 day creation...other schemes are at best errors at worst heresy...

      Your brother in Christ,

      Edgar Ibarra

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
      > Glenn Ferrell wrote:
      > > I'd be interested in arguments for why the 2 Thess. 2 is not referring
      > > to the pope. Simply asserting scripture identifies other "antichrists"
      > > is not sufficient to refute what Westminster maintained.
      > No, it's not. But it does refute what *some* maintain, that
      > "antichrist" may only properly refer to the Pope.
      > Properly read with the grammar of the day, the Westminster clause does
      > not identify the Pope as the only fulfillment of the prophecy, but only
      > as a (or even "the) prime example of the type.
      > Yes, the Pope is a prime example of Antichrist. But to say AntiChrist
      > can only mean the Pope is wrong.
      > I do believe that Scripture teaches that "the Man of Sin", the Beast,
      > 666 was Nero, and that most of the prophecy in the Apocalypse of John
      > was fulfilled during 70 AD and the Jewish Wars. I do not believe that
      > makes me a papist or a heretic; and I do not agree that some sort of
      > burden of proof falls upon me to refute Westminster on that. What
      > exalts those men's opinions to that level of authority?
      > (Think carefully before answering)
      > What is the Scriptural proof for that authority?
      > I think it funny that people that deny 144 hour creation are often
      > allowed as orthodox by people who condemn partial preterists as heretics.

    • Show all 21 messages in this topic