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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Reformation continuing atAPURITANSMIND.COM

Expand Messages
  • keith dotzler
    Gerry: Those are your questions, and I ll let you ask them if you find it necessary. What s with the sudden retreat, Gerry?!? You made the assertion that
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 7 1:38 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Gerry: "Those are your questions, and I'll let you ask them if you find it necessary."
       
       
      What's with the sudden retreat, Gerry?!? You made the assertion that McMahon had "apparently come around on the pope being antichrist," based on a single article he wrote about JPII.  When taken to task on your presumption, you then defended your remarks (ignoring what I had said altogether) by stating that: "He seems to quote with approbation several authors (including the Westminster Confession) which do refer to the Pope as THE Antichrist."
       
      In response to your assertions, I gave you 9 questions to ask McMahon -- the answers to which would either verify or disprove what you think McMahon believes about the Antichrist. 
       
       
      I also gave you his answers to those 9 questions, as well as a statement he made to me during an e-mail discussion, showing that he does NOT agree with the WCF, nor with the Reformers and Puritans, when he says: We will have to "see" who may be the "one" "giant" Antichrist, that man of sin, when he arises to the scene! 
       
       
      I don't need to ask McMahon those 9 questions.....I ALREADY HAVE! I supplied them for YOU to ask him, because YOU are the one who seems to be blinded by his clever play on words (e.g., he says the line of Popes are "antichrist," but never directly states that the Pope, with whom we have to do at any given point in time, is THE Antichrist, THE man of sin, and THE Beast).  Read my article "Kicking Against the Pricks" to see what I mean. 
       
       
      One thing I noticed during our e-mail discussion, was McMahon's ignorance of what the Reformers and Puritans actually believed about the identities of the Antichrist and Mystery Babylon (in fact, he couldn't even keep MY position straight). 
       
      I made the following statement to him:
       
      "Contrary to your idealist approach to the Revelation, Christians from the Waldenses, Albigenses, and Lollards...to Bishop Cranmer, John Wycliffe, and William Tyndale...to Arthur Dent, Joseph Mede, William Fulke, and King James...to E.B. Elliott, Isaac Newton, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon UNANIMOUSLY found the beast and its false church in ROME!  In other words, your so-called reformed doctrine, which you "can't get enough of," at least as it pertains to eschatology, is in DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE BELIEFS AND PROCLAMATIONS THAT ABOUNDED BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE REFORMATION!"
       
      In a blatant disregard of the factualness of the above statement, McMahon chose to chide me for not specifically citing sources that proved my above assertion, and, instead, gave me a list of works to read (Downame's Treatise Concerning Antichrist, Wylie's The Papacy is the Antichrist, and Dent's Ruin of Rome, to name but a few).  To put it mildly, he has no idea what is taught within those works...which makes the following statement of his all the more ironic: 
       
      ...you want to be sure you know exactly who said what and what they believed.  What I mean is that when you cite "authoritative sources" for a given argument, you want to make sure they are "academic" sources there as well or people will not take you seriously.  Saying that "Christians all through the centuries" believed "such and such" is no argument unless you cite and prove, by first sources, what they said.
       
        
      I've read the three works by Wylie, Downame and Dent -- and many, many more.  In fact, his list of reading material condemns him, for his eschatological beliefs are nowhere near those of the men whose works he recommended!  In response to his comments about citing sources, etc, I said:
       
      Had I given a hundred SPECIFIC citations from Francis Turretin, William Whitaker, William Fulke, John Jewel, Walter Brute, John Foxe, David Pareus, Henry More, Thomas Brightman, E.B. Elliott, James Durham, Arthur Dent, Sir Isaac Newton, Thomas Manton, John Knox, Thomas Boston, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Matthew Henry, John Calvin, Joseph Mede, or anyone else, all showing your answers to questions 1-4, for example, to be COMPLETELY WRONG, would you have acknowledged error, and changed your answers?  If so, I WILL GLADLY CITE THEM!!!
       
      Needless to say, he never took me up on my offer.  Anyone even slightly familiar with Historicism and historicist works, as well as the sheer number of Revelation commentaries that circulated during the Reformation era (I have more than 30 of them from the 16th and 17th centuries alone) can easily ascertain why McMahon ignored the challenge. 
       
       
      Why won't you ask him those questions, Gerry?  Don't you want to know EXACTLY what his position is?  If you don't want to ask him all 9 questions, ask him these 3:
       
      1)  Who is THE Antichrist TODAY?
      2)  Who is the man of sin TODAY?
      3)  Who is the Little Horn TODAY?
       
       
      My posts to you were never about McMahon's "direction."  You said he had apparently COME AROUND to the Pope being antichrist.  Having interacted with him last April, and based on the testimony of others who have contacted him over the last year, I know he hasn't.
       
       
      McMahon is not an historicist.  He's an idealist, with some futurist tendencies.  Idealists won't pin the identities of the Antichrist, the beast, the man of sin, the whore, et. al. on any specific person or kingdom.  Idealists refrain from any and all interpretations that are "time-bound." 
       
       
      "...and now he's fully professing the Westminster Confession of Faith,..."
       
       
      His "full profession" is worthless when his actions/statements CONTRADICT IT!  One only has to look as far as Judas Iscariot to see this truth in action.
       
      I wouldn't be so passionate about this, were McMahon an ordinary laymen.  On the contrary, he's in the role of pastor, teacher, and author; therefore, one is fully entitled to expect him to have his "ducks in a row" before disseminating his beliefs on a world wide website. 
       
      He's been confronted MANY times about the identity of the Antichrist (by his own admission to me during our discussion), yet he still holds to eschatological interpretations wholly unknown to the Reformers and Puritans.  I tried correcting him.  Only God knows how many have followed him in his error all these YEARS.
       
      His readers and "students" shouldn't have to wonder whether he's teaching and preaching the truth presently, or if he's simply "heading in the right direction."
       
      Don't let his new-found Covenanter beliefs blind you to his blatant rejection of that which the pre-reformers, Reformers and Puritans taught for centuries, concerning the Antichrist.  They didn't look for the "one" "giant" Antichrist, that man of sin, to arise on the scene at some point in the future, but proclaimed him to be IN THEIR MIDST! 
       
       
      Keith 
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: gmw
      Sent: 6/7/2005 8:00:55 AM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Reformation continuing atAPURITANSMIND.COM

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
      <kdotz@e...> wrote:
      > "He seems to quote with approbation several authors (including the
      Westminster Confession) which do refer to the Pope as THE Antichrist."
      >
      > Which is MEANINGLESS, Gerry.  Ask him those 9 questions.  You'll see.
      >

      Those are your questions, and I'll let you ask them if you find it
      necessary.  All I'm saying is that a couple years ago this guy was a
      "Reformed Baptist," and now he's fully professing the Westminster
      Confession of Faith, and is writing books and articles on the Solemn
      League and Covenant ( http://tinyurl.com/7p9l6 )!

      Are there things I wish he would say instead of the things he's
      currently saying?  Sure.  His links section still has some smart-alec
      comments about Covenanters and Psalmody, but this does not mean I am
      DIS-pleased to see the direction he's going in.  To the contrary.

      Let's remember him in prayer, folks.

      gmw.



    • keith dotzler
      AMEN Gerry! It would be hard to believe that any one of us came to the theological convictions we currently hold to over night or even within a few weeks.
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 7 1:40 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        AMEN Gerry!   It would be hard to believe that any one of us came to
        the theological convictions we currently hold to over night or even
        within a few weeks.  Many times change involves a paradigm shift and
        that will take a bit of time for any one to come to a full and well-
        rounded conviction.

         
        Yes, and the Lord will only send so many to warn him of his error.  By his own admission, I wasn't the first.  The fact that he has taken upon himself the roles he has, makes him all the more accountable.
         
         
        Keith
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: 6/7/2005 11:51:46 AM
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Reformation continuing atAPURITANSMIND.COM

        AMEN Gerry!   It would be hard to believe that any one of us came to
        the theological convictions we currently hold to over night or even
        within a few weeks.  Many times change involves a paradigm shift and
        that will take a bit of time for any one to come to a full and well-
        rounded conviction.

        I do pray that he does become truly convicted and convinced of the
        Covenanted Reformation and becomes a Covenanter as I pray all
        Christians will.

           Thanks for the update Gerry!

        Your Covenanter bro,

        Edgar

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "keith dotzler"
        > <kdotz@e...> wrote:
        > > "He seems to quote with approbation several authors (including
        the
        > Westminster Confession) which do refer to the Pope as THE
        Antichrist."
        > >
        > > Which is MEANINGLESS, Gerry.  Ask him those 9 questions.  You'll
        see.
        > >
        >
        > Those are your questions, and I'll let you ask them if you find it
        > necessary.  All I'm saying is that a couple years ago this guy was
        a
        > "Reformed Baptist," and now he's fully professing the Westminster
        > Confession of Faith, and is writing books and articles on the
        Solemn
        > League and Covenant ( http://tinyurl.com/7p9l6 )!
        >
        > Are there things I wish he would say instead of the things he's
        > currently saying?  Sure.  His links section still has some smart-
        alec
        > comments about Covenanters and Psalmody, but this does not mean I
        am
        > DIS-pleased to see the direction he's going in.  To the contrary.
        >
        > Let's remember him in prayer, folks.
        >
        > gmw.


      • gmw
        ... No retreat, Keith. Apparently you ve read that article with different glasses on than I did. I found what he wrote very encouraging, while you do not.
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 7 2:59 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          keith dotzler wrote:

          > What's with the sudden retreat, Gerry?!? You made the assertion that
          > McMahon had /"apparently come around on the pope being antichrist,"/
          > based on a single article he wrote about JPII. When taken to task on
          > your presumption, you then defended your remarks (ignoring what I had
          > said altogether) by stating that: /"He seems to quote with approbation
          > several authors (including the Westminster Confession) which do refer
          > to the Pope as THE Antichrist."/

          No retreat, Keith. Apparently you've read that article with different
          glasses on than I did. I found what he wrote very encouraging, while
          you do not. Apparently that's because of conversations you've had with
          him in the past, and that's fine. I've not had those conversations, and
          so I do not share the negative views. I'm asking folks to continue to
          pray for this man who has continually shown reformation over the past
          few years. I find that encouraging. That's all.

          > In response to your assertions, I gave you 9 questions to ask McMahon
          > -- the answers to which would either verify or disprove what you think
          > McMahon believes about the Antichrist.

          Oh, I don't know. You see, I believe one can believe that the Pope is
          THE Antichrist, and yet not understand, or agree with you, about who the
          little horn is. They are your questions. If you want to re-ask him to
          satisfy your requirements, go ahead. That's ok.


          > I don't _need_ to ask McMahon those 9 questions.....

          And neither does anyone else.

          > I ALREADY HAVE! I supplied them for YOU to ask him, because YOU are
          > the one who seems to be blinded by his clever play on words

          Blinded? I am not blinded. I am being very cautious, yet optimistic as
          I witness the furthering of his reformation. I believe he's been
          heading in the right direction for quite some time now, and I suggest
          that we pray for this to continue, so that he does fully develop his own
          thinking in the Scriptural and Confessional way.


          > One thing I noticed during our e-mail discussion, was McMahon's
          > ignorance of what the Reformers and Puritans actually believed about
          > the identities of the Antichrist and Mystery Babylon (in fact, he
          > couldn't even keep MY position straight).


          Which is part of the reason why I was pleased to see him quote people
          and the Confession which are stating the Reformed and Puritan view.
          Will you not pray for his continued reformation with me?

          > Why won't you ask him those questions, Gerry? Don't you want to know
          > EXACTLY what his position is?

          His answers to your nine questions are less important to me than the
          glimmers of light I am continually seeing come from him over these past
          few years. I do not doubt that if he continues on this path, he will
          come to the right conclusion regarding Antichrist even if he is not 100%
          there already.

          Shoot me for being hopeful, why don't ya?

          :-)


          > 1) Who is *THE* Antichrist _TODAY_?
          > 2) Who is the man of sin _TODAY_?
          > 3) Who is the Little Horn _TODAY_?

          Not my style. YOUR style, maybe. Not mine. Mine would be more like,
          "Hey, I just wanted to drop you a note of encouragement. I've read many
          of your articles over the years and noticed that more and more you truly
          are evidencing "A Puritan's Mind." I'm especially pleased that you've
          reconsidered your position on infant baptism, adopting the Westminster
          Standards, and the Solemn League and Covenant. I appreciated your
          article on the Pope, too. Tell me, are you convinced that the
          Confession's statement on the Pope is true, that the Pope is THE
          predicted Antichrist, THAT Man of Sin?"

          That would be more like my style.

          > My posts to you were never about McMahon's "direction." You said he
          > had apparently _COME AROUND_ to the Pope being antichrist.

          Apparently was the word I used. Yes. So sorry it caused you so much
          offense. ;)

          gmw.
        • personalwg@chartermi.net
          Interesting dialogue. Nicely written Gerry! You and Keith are in my prayers.
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 7 5:00 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Interesting dialogue. Nicely written Gerry! You and Keith are in my
            prayers.

            gmw wrote:

            >
            >
            > keith dotzler wrote:
            >
            > > What's with the sudden retreat, Gerry?!? You made the assertion that
            > > McMahon had /"apparently come around on the pope being antichrist,"/
            > > based on a single article he wrote about JPII. When taken to task on
            > > your presumption, you then defended your remarks (ignoring what I had
            > > said altogether) by stating that: /"He seems to quote with approbation
            > > several authors (including the Westminster Confession) which do refer
            > > to the Pope as THE Antichrist."/
            >
            > No retreat, Keith. Apparently you've read that article with different
            > glasses on than I did. I found what he wrote very encouraging, while
            > you do not. Apparently that's because of conversations you've had with
            > him in the past, and that's fine. I've not had those conversations, and
            > so I do not share the negative views. I'm asking folks to continue to
            > pray for this man who has continually shown reformation over the past
            > few years. I find that encouraging. That's all.
            >
            > > In response to your assertions, I gave you 9 questions to ask McMahon
            > > -- the answers to which would either verify or disprove what you think
            > > McMahon believes about the Antichrist.
            >
            > Oh, I don't know. You see, I believe one can believe that the Pope is
            > THE Antichrist, and yet not understand, or agree with you, about who the
            > little horn is. They are your questions. If you want to re-ask him to
            > satisfy your requirements, go ahead. That's ok.
            >
            >
            > > I don't _need_ to ask McMahon those 9 questions.....
            >
            > And neither does anyone else.
            >
            > > I ALREADY HAVE! I supplied them for YOU to ask him, because YOU are
            > > the one who seems to be blinded by his clever play on words
            >
            > Blinded? I am not blinded. I am being very cautious, yet optimistic as
            > I witness the furthering of his reformation. I believe he's been
            > heading in the right direction for quite some time now, and I suggest
            > that we pray for this to continue, so that he does fully develop his own
            > thinking in the Scriptural and Confessional way.
            >
            >
            > > One thing I noticed during our e-mail discussion, was McMahon's
            > > ignorance of what the Reformers and Puritans actually believed about
            > > the identities of the Antichrist and Mystery Babylon (in fact, he
            > > couldn't even keep MY position straight).
            >
            >
            > Which is part of the reason why I was pleased to see him quote people
            > and the Confession which are stating the Reformed and Puritan view.
            > Will you not pray for his continued reformation with me?
            >
            > > Why won't you ask him those questions, Gerry? Don't you want to know
            > > EXACTLY what his position is?
            >
            > His answers to your nine questions are less important to me than the
            > glimmers of light I am continually seeing come from him over these past
            > few years. I do not doubt that if he continues on this path, he will
            > come to the right conclusion regarding Antichrist even if he is not 100%
            > there already.
            >
            > Shoot me for being hopeful, why don't ya?
            >
            > :-)
            >
            >
            > > 1) Who is *THE* Antichrist _TODAY_?
            > > 2) Who is the man of sin _TODAY_?
            > > 3) Who is the Little Horn _TODAY_?
            >
            > Not my style. YOUR style, maybe. Not mine. Mine would be more like,
            > "Hey, I just wanted to drop you a note of encouragement. I've read many
            > of your articles over the years and noticed that more and more you truly
            > are evidencing "A Puritan's Mind." I'm especially pleased that you've
            > reconsidered your position on infant baptism, adopting the Westminster
            > Standards, and the Solemn League and Covenant. I appreciated your
            > article on the Pope, too. Tell me, are you convinced that the
            > Confession's statement on the Pope is true, that the Pope is THE
            > predicted Antichrist, THAT Man of Sin?"
            >
            > That would be more like my style.
            >
            > > My posts to you were never about McMahon's "direction." You said he
            > > had apparently _COME AROUND_ to the Pope being antichrist.
            >
            > Apparently was the word I used. Yes. So sorry it caused you so much
            > offense. ;)
            >
            > gmw.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
            >
            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
            >
            >
          • gmw
            Well, thank you for the compliment, and for the prayers. You might arnot know it by our current discussion, but I consider Keith and me to be buds! gmw.
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 7 7:06 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, thank you for the compliment, and for the prayers. You might
              arnot know it by our current discussion, but I consider Keith and me
              to be buds!

              gmw.

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, personalwg@c... wrote:
              > Interesting dialogue. Nicely written Gerry! You and Keith are in my
              > prayers.
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.