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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Hello

Expand Messages
  • Colin
    ... I ve addressed this section of the WCF previously. I had said that I, as a orthodox preterist, agree with the statement that the Pope is that antichrist
    Message 1 of 30 , Apr 2 10:39 AM
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
      s.padbury@t... wrote:
      > >Chapter 25 Section 6, Of the Church: There is no other head
      > >of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of
      > >Rome, in any sense, be 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.
      >
      > So, pah! to the idea that the Westminster Standards allow
      > semi-preterism.

      I've addressed this section of the WCF previously. I had said that
      I, as a orthodox preterist, agree with the statement that the Pope
      is that "antichrist" and that "man of sin". This, I remind you is in a
      chapter on ecclesiology and not eschatology. There is nothing
      anti-preterist in the eschatological portions of the WCF (XXXII an
      XXXIII) and chapter XXV:6 can be interpreted as speaking
      *ethically* rather than eschatologically.

      Also, the statement about describing the Pope as that Antichrist,
      etc. is spoken as a hyperbole and is therefore not an essential to
      the topic of section 6, which is about the exclusive headship of
      Christ.

      BTW the original chapter XXV:6 statement would imply in our day,
      that while it specifically rules out the Pope as head of the church,
      it does not specifically rule out other attempted usurpers to the
      title. So in the context of 17th century Britian and Europe, it was
      correct in focusing on the Pope of Rome, but since that time,
      other antichrists have arisen throughout the world.

      Also, recall the words of John Newton who had said, "I have read
      of many wicked popes, but the worst pope I read of is pope self".

      > >Let King Jesus reign, and ALL his enemies be scattered.
      > >
      > >Tom
      >
      > Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself!

      Does that include orthodox preterists as "enemies"?

      Colin
    • Thomas Britton
      ... No, that actually wasn t what I had in mind. HTH, Tom
      Message 2 of 30 , Apr 2 5:10 PM
        > Does that include orthodox preterists as "enemies"?
        >
        > Colin

        No, that actually wasn't what I had in mind.


        HTH,

        Tom
      • s.padbury@tiscali.co.uk
        Hello Colin, ... the Pope is that antichrist and that man of sin . This, I remind you is in a chapter on ecclesiology and not eschatology. There is nothing
        Message 3 of 30 , Apr 3 12:02 AM
          Hello Colin,

          >--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
          >s.padbury@t... wrote:
          >> >Chapter 25 Section 6, Of the Church: There is no other head
          >> >of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of
          >> >Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that ,
          >> >that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in
          >> > the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
          >>
          >> So, pah! to the idea that the Westminster Standards allow
          >> semi-preterism.
          >

          >>I had said that I, as a orthodox preterist, agree with the statement that
          the Pope is that "antichrist" and that "man of sin". This, I remind you
          is in a chapter on ecclesiology and not eschatology. There is nothing anti-preterist
          in the eschatological portions of the WCF (XXXII an XXXIII) and chapter
          XXV:6 can be interpreted as speaking *ethically* rather than eschatologically.

          "AntiChrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself
          in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." These phrases
          are directly lifted out of the Scripture. It is clear that the authors intended
          to say exactly what they did say: "AntiChrist, that man of sin, and son
          of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all
          that is called God." Deliberately chosen words these. You have no grounds
          whatever for saying that these are not intended eschatologically as well
          as ethically. There are a definite pointing of the Westminster Assembly's
          collective finger at "*that* Antichrist, *that* man of sin." Namely, THAT
          very same one as the Scriptires speak of.

          > but since that time, other antichrists have arisen throughout the world.

          But none so obviously the head of the false church, Babylon the great, "that
          exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

          And God will scatter all his enemies anyhow.

          >>>> Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself!
          >>Does that include orthodox preterists as "enemies"?

          Not necessarily.

          And I no not accept that preterism is orthodox.

          Simon.
        • Colin
          ... Yet, the WCF does not cite 1 or 2 John which are the only places where antichrist is actually mentioned in the Bible. Clearly they could not escape the
          Message 4 of 30 , Apr 8 2:42 PM
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, s.padbury@t...
            wrote:
            > Hello Colin,
            >
            > >--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
            > >s.padbury@t... wrote:
            > >> >Chapter 25 Section 6, Of the Church: There is no other head
            > >> >of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of
            > >> >Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that ,
            > >> >that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself
            > >> >in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
            > >>
            > >> So, pah! to the idea that the Westminster Standards allow
            > >> semi-preterism.
            > >
            >
            > [Colin wrote]:
            > >>I had said that I, as a orthodox preterist, agree with the
            > statement that the Pope is that "antichrist" and that "man of sin".
            > This, I remind you is in a chapter on ecclesiology and not
            > eschatology. There is nothing anti-preterist in the eschatological
            > portions of the WCF (XXXII an XXXIII) and chapter XXV:6 can be
            > interpreted as speaking *ethically* rather than eschatologically.
            >
            > [Simon wrote]:

            > "AntiChrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth
            > himself in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."
            > These phrases are directly lifted out of the Scripture.

            Yet, the WCF does not cite 1 or 2 John which are the only places
            where "antichrist" is actually mentioned in the Bible. Clearly they
            could not escape the obvious 1st century AD focus of John's Epistles.
            Instead, the WCF relies on proof texts such as Rev 13:6 and 2 Thess 2
            on the assumption that Paul's "man of sin" was John's "antichrist".
            Yet the description of the two do not match. Neither does the
            description of John's "Beast" of Revelation match John's description
            of "antichrist" even though both are contemporary to John's day.

            > It is clear that the authors intended to say exactly what they did
            > say: "AntiChrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that
            > exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all that is
            > called God." Deliberately chosen words these. You have no grounds
            > whatever for saying that these are not intended eschatologically as
            > well as ethically. There are a definite pointing of the Westminster
            > Assembly's collective finger at "*that* Antichrist, *that* man of
            > sin." Namely, THAT very same one as the Scriptires speak of.

            I never said that the framers did not intend to have their
            interpretation taken eschatologically. They did believe in the
            ongoing eschatological fulfillment of antichrist and Man of sin in
            history even up to their own time. But that was a *mistaken* belief
            on their part which only reveals their own fallibility. Surely you
            believe that the puritans were fallible men and that they sometimes
            made mistakes in interpretation? This does not in anyway undermine
            the value of the puritans anymore than the recorded mistakes of Moses
            or King David undermine their value too.

            So while I can agree with the ethical and ecclesiastical
            interpretation of the WCF XXV:6 in pointing their finger at Rome, I
            am not bound to follow the Framer's mistakes in eschatological
            methodology when they were clearly wrong on that. The WCF is not the
            inerrant Bible. It is just a book like all other human books and is
            subject to editorial revision when and where it is scripturally
            required.

            What is interesting to me is that it seems that had the original WCF
            been explicitly preterist from the beginning, then those who think
            that the WCF is without error would vigorously oppose any historicist
            interpretation put on it simply because that method dared to disagree
            with the WCF and its hypothetical preterism.

            Ultimately the issue with orthodox preterism is to be settled on
            scriptural grounds and not subordinate confessional grounds.

            > > but since that time, other antichrists have arisen throughout the
            > > world.
            >
            > But none so obviously the head of the false church, Babylon the
            > great, "that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ and all
            > that is called God."
            >

            There is no mention of "Babylon the great" in chapter XXV:6 or in the
            later eschatological chapters of the WCF. And the assumption
            that "Babylon the great" existed in the 17th century or even today is
            just a mere assumption, the latter being of paranoid dimensions. The
            internal and external evidence points more clearly to the 1st century
            AD.

            > And I no not accept that preterism is orthodox.
            >

            The phrase "orthodox" preterism refers to a commitment to creedal
            orthodoxy of the early church (Nicene Creed, Athanasian creed, etc).
            This is necessary in order to distinguish it from the heretical copy
            cat version known as Hyper-Preterism that rejects the early creeds of
            the church. Thus, in the correct sense of the word, Orthodox
            preterism is indeed very orthodox despite its disagreement with the
            fallible puritan method of prophetic interpretation which leads to
            endless speculation, date setting and paranoia over the "antichrist"
            and the endtimes.

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