The Antichrist - who is he according to you?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Aug 16, 2013.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4


    =====================
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith

    The Confession of Faith taught the typical Protestant view of the time that the Pope is antichrist.
    26.4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither 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.
    http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part26

    A full quote of 26.4

    The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. In Him, by the appointment of the Father, is vested in a supreme and sovereign manner all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church. The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be head of the Church, but he is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, who the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

    ===================
     
  2. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if Ellen Gould White is the antichrist...

    But her name does add up to the number of the beast 666.

    Ellen = L+L=100
    Gould=U+L+D=555
    White=a double ‘U’ = 2 ‘V’s +1 =11

    100 + 555 + 11 = 666

    ZOWWIE !!!!:eek:
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Westminster Confession of Faith - Section 25.6

    VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] 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 exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14]
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Other Protestant reformers have addressed this topic as well..

     
  5. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    You probably don't want to quote wiki as what Baptists (or any other group) actually believes.

    You continue to think that Baptists have a group think mentality. We don't. There are still those who believe the Pope is the anti-Christ. But over the 50 + years, I have also seen the AC said to be JFK, Kissinger, il Duce and a variety of other people. But there are lots of Baptists who identify the AC as Antiochus Epiphanes or any of the Caesars. There's a large group who don't think that it is any one person but a spirit of the age.

    According to me, I think the AC is yet to be revealed. Maybe he's already here and maybe it won't happen for a long time. God will do what God will do.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter writes that in 1378 an assembly of 13 Cardinals (later joined by 3 Italian Cardinals) who had previously elected Pope Urban VI (April 7, 1378), subsequently elected Pope Clement VII (Sept 20, 1378) and declared Pope Urban VI's election invalid "and denounced him as antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant" <ref> Thomas Bokenkotter, "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" ISBN-0-385-41147-2 Chapter 17 p167</ref>.

    This is significant because it shows the contemporary context for Martin Luther prior to his statements about the Papacy.
     
    #6 BobRyan, Aug 16, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2013
  7. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does the SDA Clear Word Bible have to say about it?

    And why are non-Christian cult members like the SDA allowed on this board anyway?

    JW's and Mormons are not allowed.

    Why are polytheist false prophet followers allowed?
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Agreed. But in this case - Spurgeon is the one quoted in full -

    http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part26


    Spurgeon was editing the 1689 version of the Baptist Confession of Faith - and one or two here on this board have admitted that they do agree with the document. As it turns out.

    Even D.L. Moody's sermon on the Ten Commandments is in full agreement with the Baptist Confession of Faith - section 19.

    And a number of Baptist conventions officially adopted it in Europe and the US.

    That does not mean that I think all baptists agree to anything at all - just that these documents and these Baptist conventions "exist" as a fact of history.


    I agree that some fly by night - (every wind of doctrine) alternatives have come up since the Protestant Reformer's more unified view.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a link to a webpage that shows us that the SDA prophet Ellen White is actually a prophet of the antichrist !!!

    http://www.fmh-child.org/SDA.html

    Show us where they are wrong, bobryan.
     
  10. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    As does the bogus SDA Clear Word Bible.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since Targus never tires of being reminded that there is no such thing as an "Adventist Bible" - and that the "Clear word" is in fact a commentary/paraphrase by one guy - acting on his own free will and not an accepted/adopted document by any SDA convention in all of time. I have reminded him "yet again".

    And since Targus always asks to be reminded of how that contrasts to the actual history of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" - I gladly post that information he so loves to be reminded of.

    After all - if Targus insists on seeing this information on any thread remotely connected to it - who am I to object?

    =======================================

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith

    The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith[1] (also called the Second London Baptist Confession) was written by Particular Baptists, who held to a CalvinisticSoteriology in England to give a formal expression of their Christian faith from a Baptist perspective. This confession, like The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Savoy Declaration (1658), was written by Puritans who were concerned that their particular church organisation reflect what they perceived to be Biblical teaching. Because it was adopted by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches in the 18th century, it is also known as the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

    In 1689, The Toleration Act was passed, which enabled religious freedom and plurality to co-exist alongside the established churches in England and Scotland. This official reprieve resulted in representatives from over 100 Particular Baptist churches to meet together in London from 3–12 September to discuss and endorse the 1677 document. Despite the fact that the document was written in 1677, the official preface to the document has ensured that it would be known as the "1689 Baptist Confession of Faith".

    Particular Baptists were quick to develop churches in colonial America, and in 1707 the Philadelphia Baptist Association was formed.[3] This association formally adopted the 1689 confession in 1742[3] after years of tacit endorsement by individual churches and congregational members. With the addition of two chapters (on the singing of psalms and the laying on of hands), it was retitled The Philadelphia Confession of Faith[4] Further Calvinistic Baptist church associations formed in the mid-late 18th century and adopted the confession as "The Baptist Confession".


    =====================================
     
    #11 BobRyan, Aug 16, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2013
  12. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who cares what Luther, Calvin, Wiliams and all the other people thought about the identity of the AC? Who cares who I think is the anti-Christ?

    Of course they exist. Baptists (Calvin and Luther were not baptists) have been around for hundreds of years. Let's see how long has SDA been around? Since 1863?

    You can quote all these guys all you want. I don't know that anyone on here has ever thought that any of them were perfect or that they were prophets in the Biblical sense of the word.

    fly by night... an SDA advocate talking about fly by night... that's rich. :tongue3:
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    Again, it matters little what reformers said, confession said, regarding the Antichrist, as the BIBLE states that he will be a future world leader, allowed by god to rise up, to be equipped and energized by satan, and who will potry himself as the Christ!

    Does Ellen white see the pope as Antichrist? did God reveal that to her?
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Indeed - we can ignore your views and the reformers views. But it is doubtful we will equivocate between the two.

    But as historic data points go - it is nice to have the actual facts of history in the thread regarding the history of this identification with both RCC and Protestant sources showing a certain level of consistency.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    Well, BOB keeps quoting theConfessions and those Christians like their Apostles, and their writtings are scripture!


    Worse, keeps commiting brealing Command to not bear falsewitnes, as keeps misquoting and misusing them!
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Indeed - some may not be interested in the Protestant reformers at all.

    Still - I don't mind have these historic details on the thread.:type:

    Because objective unbiased readers - do care about actual history.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    If you really did care about historical facts and truth, would seperate from following a false prophetess!
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Martin Luther finally declared, [b]"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist."[/b] (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121. Quote:
    John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): [b]"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."[/b] Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.
    Quote:
    John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks."
    The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.
    Quote:
    Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons."[/b] (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
    Quote:
    Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the
    son of perdition (II Thess. 2)."

    The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

    =======================================

    Those who would rather "make stuff up" than pay attention to 1John 2, Rev 13, 2Thess 2... will not understand the spirit and heart of the protestant reformers on this subject.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is the Bible evidence used in the Westminster Confession of Faith -

    =======================================

    Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession, Section 6. The original text of the Confession reads:

    There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.13 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 exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.14
    13. COL 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. EPH 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.​
    14. MAT 23:8-10 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 2TH 2:3-4, 8-9 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 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. 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: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. REV 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.​
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    Antichrist NOT the pope, but is a leader who starts out as a small horn, but rises up quickly, due to Satan using him to try to become "emperor of the earth"

    Now the papacy of that time might well be the false prophet, but NOT Antichrist!
     

Share This Page

Loading...