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

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

Expand Messages
  • Charles Barden
    I sense the spirit of boasting in this forum today. As an outsider looking in, you are both right in some points. However, Keith it seems is being egotistical
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I sense the spirit of boasting in this forum today.  As an outsider looking in, you are both right in some points.  However, Keith it seems is being egotistical which is not helping his cause.  I think he has some good points but we have to remember that no one is perfect and no one has the absolute truth; it is a journey.  Calling someone a papist or a jesuit...them is fightin' words.

      In Messiah,

      Charles
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@...>
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 7:40:37 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Mark of the Number of the Name of the Beast video

      Keith Dotzler wrote:

      I didn't call you a Papist, so who is misrepresenting whom?




      Well, you did use the rhetoric of asking him if he's a Jesuit
       (which is a papist).  I wouldn't say he's misrepresenting you.  If you think he's misUNDERSTANDING you, then you might correct us all by saying clearly what you were implying with the question of whether he was a Jesuit.

      gmw
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
      Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.7.2/1690 - Release Date: 9/25/2008 7:05 AM

    • Jerry
      Sure, there were many in that day... yet the Antichrist is coming was not voided by the fact that this mystery of ungodliness was already at work. gmw. ...
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        Sure, there were many in that day... yet "the Antichrist is coming" was not voided by the fact that this mystery of ungodliness was already at work.

        gmw.

        Larry Bump wrote:

        Antonio wrote:
        > I know I haven't wrote in quite some time on this list but I just want
        > to applaud your
        > comments, Jerry. I believe as you and many on this list do that the
        > Papacy is the "man
        > of sin", "son of perdition" and "the AntiChrist."
        \

        Just remember that the Apostle John wrote "18Little children, it is the
        last hour; and as you have heard that the£ Antichrist is coming, even
        now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. "

        there *were* many in that day, before there was a pope.

        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
        Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1697 - Release Date: 9/29/2008 7:40 AM
          

        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
        Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1697 - Release Date: 9/29/2008 7:40 AM
        
      • Larry Bump
        ... The problem with the whole argument is the presuppositions of one party. Some believe that Westminster has all the truth, and cannot be disputed in any
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Charles Barden wrote:
          > I sense the spirit of boasting in this forum today. As an outsider
          > looking in, you are both right in some points. However, Keith it seems
          > is being egotistical which is not helping his cause. I think he has
          > some good points but we have to remember that no one is perfect and no
          > one has the absolute truth; it is a journey. Calling someone a papist
          > or a jesuit...them is fightin' words.


          The problem with the whole argument is the presuppositions of one party.
          Some believe that Westminster has all the truth, and cannot be
          disputed in any way.
          My position is that that belief is a denial of the Reformation. All
          man's teaching must be questioned, and cannot be held above scrutiny.

          Larry
        • Glenn Ferrell
          Yes, Scripture is the standard. All others must be evaluated by their scriptural arguments. But, one must show the fallacy of Westminster or other s
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, Scripture is the standard.  All others must be evaluated by their scriptural arguments.  But, one must show the fallacy of Westminster or other's arguments, and why they are not scriptural. 
             
            No one here has denied there were or are other "antichrists."  However, you have not provided an argument for the identity of the "son of perdition" and "man of sin." 
             
            I spent a year (1971-72) at Princeton Theological Seminary. One of my liberal professors had served as a navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit chaplain. Though liberal, this Presbyterian chaplain understood the Reformation argument for the identity of the Antichrist. He explained these to the Jesuit. The latter responded, "The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable!"
             
            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.
             
            Glenn


            J. Glenn Ferrell, Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Boise, Idaho    http://sovereignredeemer.org




            To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
            From: lbump@...
            Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:31:08 -0400
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Mark of the Number of the Name of the Beast video


            Charles Barden wrote:
            > I sense the spirit of boasting in this forum today. As an outsider
            > looking in, you are both right in some points. However, Keith it seems
            > is being egotistical which is not helping his cause. I think he has
            > some good points but we have to remember that no one is perfect and no
            > one has the absolute truth; it is a journey. Calling someone a papist
            > or a jesuit...them is fightin' words.

            The problem with the whole argument is the presuppositions of one party.
            Some believe that Westminster has all the truth, and cannot be
            disputed in any way.
            My position is that that belief is a denial of the Reformation. All
            man's teaching must be questioned, and cannot be held above scrutiny.

            Larry

          • Larry Bump
            ... 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,
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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.
            • Leah & Adam Boone
              i think because many people see partial preterism as the gateway to full preterism, which has a whole host of significant theological implications beyond who
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                i think because many people see partial preterism as the gateway to full preterism, which has a whole host of significant theological implications beyond who is the antichrist
                adam

                On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
                Glenn Ferrell wrote:

                >
                I think it funny that people that deny 144 hour creation are often
                allowed as orthodox by people who condemn partial preterists as heretics.

                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/

                <*> Your email settings:
                   Individual Email | Traditional

                <*> To change settings online go to:
                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/join
                   (Yahoo! ID required)

                <*> To change settings via email:
                   mailto:covenantedreformationclub-digest@yahoogroups.com
                   mailto:covenantedreformationclub-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                   covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              • Ic Neltococayotl
                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
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment

                  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:

                  http://www.covenanter.org/TBoston/prayer_against_antichrist.html

                  http://www.covenanter.org/TManton/2Thessalonians2/eighteensermons.html

                  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.
                  >

                • Larry Bump
                  ... Which is no more fair than rejecting Calvinism because you are afraid of hyper, or rejecting a Free Offer because it s too close to Pelagianism. To date
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Leah & Adam Boone wrote:
                    > i think because many people see partial preterism as the gateway to full
                    > preterism, which has a whole host of significant theological
                    > implications beyond who is the antichrist


                    Which is no more fair than rejecting Calvinism because you are afraid of
                    hyper, or rejecting a Free Offer because it's too close to Pelagianism.
                    To date the Apocalypse according to the internal evidence is not heresy,
                    but simple good exegesis.

                    Larry
                  • Antonio
                    Partial-preterism should either lead one to a full blown preterism if continually applying all passages the same or be a stepping stone to becoming a
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 3, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Partial-preterism should either lead one to a full blown preterism if continually applying all passages the same or be a stepping stone to becoming a historicist. The WCF description of the AntiChrist includes the labels of "man of sin" and "son of perdition" which would have only meant the Pope of Rome in their minds. Since we have started speaking of II Thessalonians 2, which to me is the key text on the subject, let us set aside for the moment whether or not the "man of sin" and " son of perdition" are one and the same with the AntiChrist (though I believe in the Confession's thoughts they are).
                       
                      Let us go through some of the key facets of the II Thessalonians 2 text like those of the falling away, the thing that lets or withholds this man of sin, and also that of this man of sin sitting in the temple as God. I would be greatly appreciative to hear your thoughts on these matters Elder Bump or any other partial-preterest in this group so as to better understand where you are coming from on this. 
                       
                      I look forward to hearing from the list on this one for sure so that even as iron sharpens iron one brother may sharpen another.
                       
                      Your brother in Christ,
                       
                      Antonio

                      On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Ic Neltococayotl <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:

                      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:

                      http://www.covenanter.org/TBoston/prayer_against_antichrist.html

                      http://www.covenanter.org/TManton/2Thessalonians2/eighteensermons.html

                      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.
                      >


                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.