The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Timothy George says we have nothing to worry

Pope Benedict 16 good news for evangelicals?

Is B-16 really nothing to worry about and should we really rejoice that "this" pope is now leading the RCC faithful?

I am trying to think of a diplomatic way to say this but I can't so here goes. Why does it matter? (And I've erased the rest of what I wrote because I'm already waving my ignorance around like a flag--again.) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It looks like ECT is regearing. We always have something to worry about when "false" theology is produced, proclaimed, and protected! While prepared for battle, let us see what changes DO really take place and see if it is REAL Christianity or .... still another gospel.

Why does what matter?

From this glowing report by Timothy George, I would have thought that Pope Benedict would have left the Church long ago. Maybe it’s Timothy George we need to worry about. Is a merger on the horizon? Found this article on the internet.
Critique of Timothy George

Dave

Pope John Paul II was so wildly successful in opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or worshipped that the devil will continue the same strategy under Benedict 16. The plan is to beguile the world's religious leaders into a false ecumenical movement with the Pope as the official leader.

Timothy George is definitely someone to worry about--thus my mention of ECT. You may find this article interesting: Dominus Iesus: Rome Exalts Her Throne, Timothy George Accepts the Kiss of Death

Sorry about this. I just read it and realized that your comment was directed at me.

Why does it matter? As in Who cares what the Pope thinks? I know a lot of Catholic folks put a lot of stock in what he says and does but I don't so I asked: Why does it matter? Which is frequently a question that cannot be asked diplomatically.

If anything it bothers me less what he thinks considering he used to hold down the renamed office responsible for the Inquisition. But thats just me.

Whatever one thinks of Timothy George, the papacy, Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church, or Evangelicals and Catholic Together, it makes about as much sense to say that it doesn't matter who sits in the chair of St. Peter as it does to say it doesn't matter who the President of the People's Republic of China is, or the Chairman of North Korea. The U.S.S.R. was an evil empire, guided by an evil ideology, and ruled by evil men; but it would be the height of absurdity to say (as some do) that there are no significant differences (i.e., differences that make a difference in the lives of people of nations) between Stalin and Gorbachev, or between Lenin and Kruschev.
While I pray for a pope who will come to see the errors of Roman Catholicism and embrace the doctrines of sola scriptura and justification by faith alone (among many. many others), when/if that happens he will cease to be the pope, and the RCC will cease to exist as well. Until that happens I will judge popes by how much worse they could be. Imagine what the world would be like today if the last pope had been or the present pope was a Catholic liberal or modernist who leaned more towards the views of Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, or Rosemary Radford Ruether. Imagine the impact upon the world and upon Christendom of a pope who was not pro-life, not pro-family/marriage, or not anti-liberation theology. Doesn't make any difference you say? Get real!

Brad,

The June 5 WHI broadcast What About The New Pope? tackled Benedict 16 on an issue-by-issue basis, as you recommend. Their concensus: on social issues, continuity with JP2; on doctrine, more clearly and distinctively RC than we've seen recently. They felt, and I agree, that this may make him less beguiling to doctrinally weak evangelicals than his predecessor.

The Roman church would quickly disintegrate into chaos as many Liberal Protestant churches have.


The Antichrist will not proclaim any new doctrines that are certain to diminish his power and dominion. Get Real!

Paul,

I certainly agree with this assessment. It is the insidious subtlety of the RCC that makes her so dangerous. Her appearance of conforming to the law and morality of Scripture is deceitful and disarming to those who do not know their need for redemption by Christ ALONE.


The leaders of the RCC continue to be (possibly even more so with this new pope) snakes and white sepulcures.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Is that the Pope? I always thought that was Hillary Clinton.

Good points Brad but you missed what I was getting at (or at least what I attempted to get at.) Those in "Christendom" as you call it who are actually Christian folks would probably run screaming from the Catholic church at that point. I don't know where they'd go, but I can't see a person who's actually saved buying into an agenda like that. Orthodox Wrong is still wrong--whatever his dogma. If its not based on the Word of God its still male bovine dung.

doulos!


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

In response to my call to imagine what things would be like, etc., etc., if John Paul II had not been, or Benedict XVI was not pope, you replied:


I would have to disagree with this, at least in part. No pope would adopt and proclaim a pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-liberation agenda outright and openly --- it would be introduced slowly and gradually, with study commissions, councils, encyclicals, etc., etc. Vatican II was a radical departure from orthodoxy and tradition; yet, it's deviations have been embraced more or less wholeheartedly by the majority of Catholics because it was in sympathy with the spirit of the times. Well, the spirit of the age today is even more radically pagan and unorthodox, so I wouldn't expect much resistance over the long haul. Catholic theology is so convoluted, confusing, and unbiblical that most Catholics will believe anything over time, provided it is sufficiently popularized and presented by a trusted priest or pope. Most of the Catholics that I know are basically New Age pantheists and pluralists who believe all "good people" are part of the church (anonymous Christians) and will go to heaven, "whatever that is," to be with Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Buddha, and Mohammed.
Nevertheless, I do believe that over time such a church would "disintegrate into chaos" like most or all liberal Protestant churches; but ultimately, this is idle speculation, just like your judgment that the pope is the Antichrist.



The only references to the Antichrist (as opposed to "the Beast," the "man of lawlessness," or the "Abomination of Desolation") that I can find are in the letters of John:



From these passages it is clear that anyone who "denies that Jesus is the Christ," or "denies the Father and the Son," or does not confess "Jesus is from God," or does not confess "the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh" is an antichrist. While Karl Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI) doctrinal errors are MANY and SERIOUS, he has never denied that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus is God, the Trinity, or the Incarnation; in fact, he has defended these doctines with vigor against liberals within the Church who deny them. If he doesn't even qualify as an antichrist, how can he be The Antichrist?

I'd say the pope being "less beguiling" to "doctrinally weak evangelicals" is a good thing, wouldn't you? A pope who is "weak" on ecumenism, turning off evangelical Protestants who want to embrace all Catholics everywhere and say "brother," while at the same time holding the line against theological and political liberalism, providing a bulwark against even greater moral depravity and the culture of death --- who could ask for anything more in a pope? He is the pope after all, not the President of the SBC or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Hi everyone <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Having quickly read this thread, I found something of interest. The following is what I recieved from Grace Gems (daily email) following the death of John Paul II:

The Death of John Paul II

I grieve for John Paul II who gained the whole world
but forfeited his soul. Year after year he was the most
loved and admired man in the world, but because he
was blinded by the prince of this world, he never saw
the light of the gospel or the glory of Christ. Had he
been a devoted follower of Jesus Christ he would have
been hated and persecuted by the world. I also grieve
for the many who have been deceived by this pope and
his religion. It breaks my heart to see so many professing
Christians who cannot discern truth from error and genuine
Christianity from its counterfeit.

If ever there was a more important time for faithful servants
of our Lord Jesus Christ to take a stand for the truth, it is now.
The religious corruption of Rome has been on constant display
for the whole world to see. The splendor and pageantry has
been extraordinary. Thousands of deceived people have stood
in long lines to venerate a dead man with a rosary in his hands
and a twisted crucifix by his side. Bishops and Cardinals are
now encouraging Catholics to pray to and for this dead pope
whose body is constantly being "blessed" with incense and holy
water. Praying prayers with meaningless repetition to anyone
other than God is an abomination to God (Matthew 6:5-7;
Deut. 18:11). The bizarre veneration and adoration of this man
has been unprecedented. It appears no one is concerned with
the words of Jesus who said, "Woe to you when all men speak
well of you" (Luke 6:26)

Tragically the pope has had greater success in deceiving the
world since he died than during his 26 year pontificate. The
global media has become his mouthpiece and willing partner
in spreading his perverted theology. Through non-stop television
coverage, the pope's church has become the world's stage. Its
princes have been masquerading in their purple and scarlet robes
as "ministers of righteousness." They have cast a spell over the
TV audience with the splendor or their rituals and the pomp and
pageantry of their pagan traditions. The magnificence and
grandeur of this corrupt religion has bewitched much of the
gullible world into believing this is what Christianity is all about.

Few evangelical leaders will speak about the pope's false gospel
that shut the kingdom of heaven to those who wanted to enter.
They refuse to acknowledge that he was condemned by God's
word for preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Instead they
are saying that since he "believed in Jesus," he went directly
to heaven. His salvation has been guaranteed by some
evangelicals because of his suffering, goodness, and holiness.
There are times in the lives of evangelicals when our faith is
tested. This is indeed one of those tests and sadly we see
many failing the tests by capitulating with enemies of the
Gospel. Could it be that they are seeking the favor and
approval of men rather than the approval of God?

Many are praising John Paul II for being a great spiritual leader.
But why give such honor to the head of an apostate church which
keeps over a billion people in spiritual darkness. While he never
claimed to be God, he took pleasure in being addressed with
titles reserved for the triune God alone. He usurped the title
"Holy Father" from God the Father, "The Head of the Church"
from the Lord Jesus Christ and "The Vicar of Christ" from the
Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised to send in His place.

The pope said he represented Jesus Christ, yet he lived in stark
contrast to the Savior who had no place to lay His head. He
denied Jesus was man's Creator by teaching evolution is true.
On several occasions he denied that Jesus was the only way to
the Father. When he addressed Muslim leaders, he said there is
"a common spiritual bond that unites us." In 1999 he denied the
blood of Jesus was the only purification for sin by awarding a
plenary indulgence for anyone who quit smoking or drinking
alcohol. John Paul is acclaimed as a great moral leader, yet
he failed to discipline American Bishops for tolerating the
wicked sexual abuse of deviant priests.

One thing is certain--the pope knows the truth now. I believe
he is experiencing what the rich man in Luke 16 endured. Both
of them dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in splendor
every day. When the rich man died and found himself tormented
in the flames of Hades, he begged the Father to send someone
to tell his family the truth so they would repent and not end up
in the same place. The pope may now be making the same request.

The passing of John Paul II opens up a tremendous opportunity
for Christians to talk about spiritual issues. We must speak the
truth in love and proclaim the Gospel with clarity and completeness!
We must also earnestly contend for the faith against everything
that stands opposed to God's word. May God help us to be faithful
in these times of great deception and compromise!
Mike Gendron"

Dave

There is something both Hopeful and Speratus have alluded to in their posts that I feel is the central issue in answering the question of whether or not Benedict XVI is really "nothing to worry about" and "good news for evangelicals," and whether we should "rejoice that 'this' pope is now leading the RCC faithful."





Whether we like it or not, whether it is good or right or not, the pope and Billy Graham are the spokemen of Christianity to the world (blame the world, blame the media, blame the church, blame whoever you like, but facts is facts). Billy Graham will die sometime in the near future (barring Rapture or Second Coming of Christ) and then there will just be the pope again (though I fear Rick Warren intends to try to fill Billy Graham's shoes). This is true regardless of who the pope is. Therefore, where the pope stands and what the pope says about doctinal, moral, and political matters is significant --- it matters (think fall of Communism, abortion, etc.).
The gospel of the Roman Catholic Church is a false gospel, and therefore, no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-7). It would be wonderful if the pope and the RCC embraced the true gospel of out Lord Jesus Christ; but, if they did I believe they would cease to exist altogether in their present mode (which is fine by me). But until a pope comes along with Martin Luther type aspirations or a Samson complex, we must not say that one pope is just as bad as another. There are degrees of badness, and the pope's badness must be compared and contrasted with that of other popes and leaders within the RCC, and his theology judged according to realistic and living options within the RCC.
I have no difficulty with anything in the article Hopeful posted, and I can rant about the corruption and deception of the RCC as long and as loudly as anyone. But of all the potential candidates for a new pope, I think Ratzinger was the best choice. What the media often refer to as "reformers" or "reform-minded" people in the RCC are not Protestant or evangelical reformers, they are liberal, modernist, anti-supernaturalist, New Age, pantheist, feminist, pro-homosexual Catholic reformers. There are no "Luthers" that I know of (if you say Hans Kung I'll shoot you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />) --- they just become Protestants these days. Again I ask, would a pope even slightly more sympathetic towards these "reformers" have been a better choice?

Brad

I see your reasoning behind what you said, but there is another way of looking at this.
If as you put it a "reform minded pope" had been elected, many Protestants would not be deceived into thinking that the RCC represents the true Gospel.
The way it is however, many Protestants are heralding the pope as a defender of the Christian world view.

I will let you judge which option is worse.

Tom

But are they rushing out and joining the Catholic Church? Do they really believe the only differences now are about incense, robes, and rosary beads? And he (the pope) does in fact defend many aspects of a Christian worldview...just not the most important one.

To go back to the Luther illustration, supposing Ratizinger was in fact a Luther in the making (his specialty is Augustinian theology), would it be more or less likely that he would move in those directions if he believed the bible was human rather than divine in origin? Would he be more or less likely to move in that direction if he believed God was not really a Divine Person but "the ground of all Being," or a cosmic force realizing itself through evolution? And this isn't just about the beliefs of the pope himself, there is a "trickle-down" effect on other priests and teachers inside the church. This is true whether the pope is "good" or "bad," and from what I've seen most Catholics will swallow anything, so I don't wish to see a more heretical pope just so Protestants will remember why we're not Catholics.


How Protestants perceive the pope really is not imortant in my opinion, provided they don't join his church or start citing his authority on doctrinal matters, which at present, none of them (that I know) are doing. If they believe what the RCC is teaching is "the true gospel" it's their own fault and the fault of their pastors. The souls of millions within the RCC are simply too precious for me to worry about the doctrinal incorrectness of certain latitudinarian Protestants.

The Antichrist is no dummy. He knows the fragile state of his dominion. There are the pantesists and pluralists but there are also traditionalists highly alarmed over Vatican II. Any movement toward pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc. could galvanize them into declaring Benedict an Anti-Pope.


Please refer to the WCF for equivalent names in scripture.


The Pope denies Jesus is the Christ; denies the Father and the Son; denies Jesus is from God; and denies the coming of Christ in the flesh when he says:


The Pope will not permit any human creature to be saved by Christ. Salvation is by his power and through obedience to his laws. The meaning of "Antichrist" is "In place of Christ" not "Against Christ."

It was (father) Abraham whom he begged, actually, not the Father.

Brad,


I see it didn't clearly state it, but yes, that's what I was thinking--along with the WHI-4.

Must you twist the Scriptures which Brad provided for you which clearly state what the antichrist denies to be true to try and defend your erroneous position? The passages state that the antichrist will deny:

The current pope does not deny that Jesus is the Messiah! Nor does he deny the person of the Father and the Son as being God; two of the three persons of the Trinity. The matter is one of theology (proper) NOT Soteriology.

The current pope confesses that Jesus is from God. He's never even hinted otherwise. Again, this is a matter of Christology and NOT Soteriology.

The current pope affirms that Jesus Christ will return to earth bodily; in the flesh. This is a matter of both Christology and Eschatology and NOT Soteriology.

The RCC and the pope embrace myriad heresies. There is no reason, nor do you have warrant to fabricate more to charge them/him with. From all that you have posted on this Board, I would recommend that you spend more time removing the log from your own eye before you try and remove any splinters or logs from anyone else's. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

And I would recommend you read Richard Bennett's article on The Highway.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> And just who think put that article on The Highway website?

You just don't get it, do you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> The Scriptures say NOTHING about the antichrist's views concerning soteriology, but rather theology, e.g., the Trinity, Christology and Eschatology, i.e., the most basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. You, however, have taken those passages and performed a botched job of eisogesis and in so doing dishonored the wisdom of God the Spirit Who authored them. And, it must be added that you have also slandered the man who now occupies the odious office of Pope in the RCC, attributing to him a guilt which the Scriptures do not. This is a most serious sin and one which you need to repent of.

Speratus,

It's obvious that you have a very well developed and elaborate eschatological narrative worked out in your head, complete with dark conspiracies and villains who are so cunningly clever they are always several steps ahead of anyone who might expose them or their insidious secret plans. But so far I have not seen any good Scriptural support or evidence for these speculations; if I may say so, thus far your arguments are all Jenkins and no LaHaye.

Pilgrim makes the right points in response to your charge that Boniface VIII's denial of sola fide is equivalent to Benedict XVI denying that Jesus is the the Son of God, that he is the Christ, and that he came and will return in the flesh. Is every heresy equivalent to or identical with every other? Are there no distinctions? As Pilgrim observed, all popes have been guilty of myriad heresies, including Benedict XVI, and there is no need to add heresies that they have explicitly denounced and condemned to their account. As harsh as his words may sound, this is slander and bearing false witness.

In response to my statement that "the only references to the Antichrist (as opposed to "the Beast," the "man of lawlessness," or the "Abomination of Desolation") that I can find are in the letters of John," you said:


Well, the Westminster divines don't mention "the Beast," but they do refer to "that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God," which I suppose means the "man of sin" or "lawlessness" and "son of perdition" that Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. While many people believe this passage refers to and describes The Antichrist, simply calling him by another name, I am not convinced that it does, and I do not believe that the text demands this, though it may be a valid interpretive inference. The Westminster Confession may consider the "man of sin" and "the antichrist" equivalent terms (although this too seems debatable) but I do not. I am open to biblical arguments demonstrating why the Westminster Confession is right about the pope being the antichrist, and the antichrist being the same person as the "man of lawlessness;" but, as Pilgrim has noted elsewhere, it is not an inerrant document, and it cannot simply be quoted like Scripture to put an end to an argument. While it does provide scriptural texts to justify and defend its statements, it does not provide a defense for its interpretation of these passages. That is something you must do.

But really all of this is beside the point. Assuming that the "man of lawlessness," "the Beast," "the Abomination of Desolation," and "the Antichrist" are all the same person (or even the same 'office' as some would have it), nothing in Scripture indicates or even suggests that his blasphemous acts and/or heretical denials are secret, hidden, or concealed; rather, they are performed openly and spoken plainly for all to see and hear. People are/were/will be "deceived" and damned by believing these lies which are/were/will be openly proclaimed.

Christ is the sole head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:8), and the Roman Catholic Church's claim that the pope is the head of the church and the Vicar of Christ is unbiblical, blasphemous, and heretical; it is even un-Christian and anti-Christian. But it is not the spirit or doctrine of the antichrist, because it does not deny those things that the Bible says the antichrist will. The fact still remains that no pope (that I know of) has ever denied that Jesus was the Christ, that he was the Son of God, or that He came in the flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary. John Paul II did not deny these things, and Benedict XVI has not. If and when he does then it will be obvious that he manifests the spirit of the antichrist, and is an antichrist, if not The Antichrist. Until then, in my humble opinion, all you've got is an unbiblical conspiracy theory.



In Christ,

Brad Hammond

Pilgrim,

Please help me I'm sinking fast into eschatological quicksand. I am hoping that you might sympathize and throw me at least a line.

I reach for an Amillennial branch and it breaks the very second I read from Postmillennial authors and proponents. I then reach out of my sand for this Postmillennial branch and the very convincing sense of my Amillennial brothers causes this branch to also break. Pilgrim, I am a little dull but I don't believe I'm an idiot to say that these camps BOTH have good arguments!

I am now up to my nose and spitting sand. All of this is distressing, to say the least, as I know that our eschatological beliefs may profoundly affect our witness and view of the world and people around us.

I have rejected Chiliasm (Scofield and crowd) and full preterism years ago for what I believe you to know are good reasons.

But... my confusion has just been demonstrated again in your post, and you may reject my paraphrase of your words if you think necessary:

You said, if I heard you right, that the application of the title "THE antichrist" to the pope is erroneous because he does not meet the definition of "THE antichrist" as presented to us in Scripture. Ok, said and done, but in another thread (Who is the Antichrist?) you said that you have no problem considering the pope as being one of the antichrists. Forgive me for being so dull, and maybe I missed it but does this mean you have separated "The antichrist [singular, one person]" from "many antichrists" or "the spirit of the antichrist". In other words "THE antichrist" has a different nature and identity than "many antichrists". If the pope does not meet the criteria for "The antichrist" how can he even be considered an antichrist at all?

Can you see my personal confusion here?

Anyway, if it is true about this separation, what you say here has profound implications for additional thought on my part. And please don't forget the life-line to my quicksand.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Jenkins and LaHaye are unwitting accomplices in a conspiracy begun by the Jesuits hundreds of years ago to overthrow the sound eschatological doctrine of the confessing Reformation churches in favor of a futuristic Antichrist not found in scripture. Judging by the results of a poll on a conservative Reform board, the conspiracy has been quite successful.


The Pope does not just deny sola fide. He says no man comes to the Father but by him. He usurps the mediatorial office of Christ to himself. Benedict has had amply opportunity to repudiate this blasphemony of the papacy.

Ah, the plot thickens... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/whatsgoingonhere.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" />
Dan Brown's got nothing on you!
You're just pulling my leg now, right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Denny,

You are correct...... what I wrote is rather confusing because I did not state things clearly. What I should have written and which I hope will clear things up for you now is: 1) There is the "spirit of the antichrist", i.e., a general philosophical movement, trend, that epitomizes all that opposes God. 2) There are those who are paradigmatic of this "spirit" in every age; they are many and they are generally leaders, popular, influential, etc. 3) There is a future individual who is designated "THE" antichrist who will all that the "spirit" and the "many" that preceded him typified. In the vernacular, this person will be all these things rolled up into one; the whole ball of wax. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

So, what I should have written in regard to the pope is that I believe he exhibits one who is inline with the "spirit of the antichrist" for he really doesn't qualify according to the criteria set forth by the Apostle John in regard to THE big kahuna antichrist.

Lastly, in regard to the Postmil vs. Amil tension you are going through, I can truly understand because the two views have much in common. If I may risk reducing things down it seems to me the proponents of the Postmil position are working with errant definitions, which they have forced upon the Scriptures and thus end up at a different place than the Amil position does. For example, one of the most important terms for the Postmil folks is "victory, victorious, victor". They are want to define these terms "quantitatively", i.e., according to numbers. The one who has the greater "number" wins; is victorious. Thus, they reason, if Christ is said to be victorious, then it must be that the greater number will fall to Him and thus there will be more individuals in the "saved" camp than in the "unsaved" camp. However, those in the Amil camp, of which I am one, argue that the definition of these terms used by the Posties is not to be found in Scripture but it is presumed and forced and thus the unfortunate and erroneous conclusions of their view concerning the number of elect, the "Golden Age", etc. Rather, these terms are to be defined "qualitatively", i.e., that the "victor" is one who succeeds in the objective he set out to accomplish. In the biblical case of Christ, it was His goal to fulfill all that the Father gave Him to do, i.e., to save all the elect in the world. This He did in His active and passive obedience which was demonstrated to all the world in his resurrection from the dead. Secondly, the Scriptures speak in myriad places that those who are chosen of God are a "remnant", i.e., a small piece of the whole. (cf. Isa 10:20-23; Rom 9:27; 11:4-6) It was God's eternal decree to save but a small number of Adam's fallen race to His glory. It appears to me that this is also demonstrated by Paul when he argues that God's promise to save Israel had not failed but rather those questioning God's faithfulness to Israel had failed to understand what God's promise actually entailed. In fact he uses himself as the paradigm and says that since he himself had received grace as a Jew, that alone shows that God has kept His promise. (Rom 11:1ff)

Here are some of the better books, IMHO, that offer a solid defense of the Amillennial view:

- The Promise of the Future, by Cornelius Venema (see a couple of chapters here: Eschatology.
- More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen (commentary on Revelation)
- Waiting for His Coming, by Lewis Neilson (a few articles at the same link as above for Venema)
- The Pauline Eschatology, by Geerhardus Vos (with an excellent chapter on the AntiChrist)
- A Case for Amillennialism, by Kim Riddlebarger
- The Bible and the Future, by Anthony Hoekema
- Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, by John Wilmot
- Interpreting Prophesy, by Philip Edgecumbe Hughes

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Thanks so much for this clarification and I think valuable advice.

I really was considering the possibility of swearing off eschatology <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> and organizing a new support group called EA (Eschatolics Anonymous). But now I think I will go back and study this issue again. I already have Hendricksen's and Hoekema's books in my library that I read a few years ago. It is amazing sometimes that one can get much more out of a book with a second or even third reading. With theology I think it is often due to the related knowledge gained during the interim.

As far as the pope is concern would you admit that he might be the biggest Kahuna so far, as far as the "many antichrists" go? Personally I might give that honor to Mohammed.

Denny

"inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these, My brethren, you did it to Me."

I think Mohammed would have to rate a top spot. But again, I find it very difficult to include the RC Pope as being "one" of the antichrists since his theological views disqualify him; denial of the Trinity, deity of Christ, bodily return of Christ, etc. Yet I do believe that he can be seen as one who is of the "spirit" of the antichrist, i.e., one who is opposed to true Christianity and through error and deceit has and will continue to deceive many.

BTW, debating eschatology is one of those doctrines which I tend to shy away from due to the deep-seated views and passionate disposition of some. If you haven't noticed, eschatology can reach cultic levels and to question someone's views invariably can result in a declaration of war. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Brad

My answer was not to say which side of the issue is the correct one. In fact for Protestants it is probably a lot more comfortable to have Ratizinger as pope, rather than a more reform minded pope.
However, a movement like ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) probably would not have started in the first place if there had been a reform minded pope in office.
After all, can you see a conservative Christian like JI Packer involved with ECT with a reform minded pope?

The bottom line however to me is that the election of Ratizinger as pope is all part of God's sovereign plan.

Tom

Pilgrim said:


Indeed I have noticed, and not to long ago. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />

I had to edit this in order to bring a thought to consideration. In light of what is going on right now in the Middle East, eschatological beliefs may indeed BE the cause of war! Think Zionism, Chiliasm and Premillennial Dispensationalism.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

So, it's mere coincidence that most Protestants have abandoned the doctrines of their Reformation fathers and now share the same view as the Jesuit Counter-Reformationists?

You're just pulling my leg, right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Hi all

Just recieved another very applicable piece from Grace Gems (http://www.gracegems.org). Pay special attention to the last paragraph. I think that paragraph sums up exactly what the RCC is all about.

"A decent, flowery, down-hill
way to eternal destruction!"

(John Angell James, "Christian Hope" 1859)

Christ is . . .
the supreme object of a true Christian's love,
the chief source of his felicity,
the highest end of his life.

The first object of a Christian's desire, pursuit
and expectation--is the salvation of his soul.

Our great business on earth--is to fit for heaven.

Our main concern in time--is to prepare for eternity.

The world is, indeed, a very dangerous foe to the
believer. To very, very many, it is the most destructive
one. They are not so likely to be subdued by 'open vice'
as by worldly-mindedness.

Worldliness is the sin of the age, and has deeply
infected the church of Christ.

"Do not love the world or anything in the world.
If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father
is not in him." 1 John 2:15

This verse ought to ring through all Christendom,
and make the ears of millions tingle--and their
hearts to palpitate with fear and alarm!

What is the world?

Not merely open sin and vice, profligacy, idolatry,
infidelity or heresy. Oh no! The world contains many
things besides the lust of the eye, the lust of the
flesh, and the pride of life--things . . .
more decent,
more innocent,
more rational,
more commendable,
than these vile objects!

Everything on earth, however fair, laudable and
excellent in itself--everything besides God, is the
world.

Your business is the world,
your family is the world,
your comfortable home is the world,
the wife of your bosom is the world,
the children whom God has given you are the world.

"What! then," you exclaim, "are we not to love these?"
Yes, in proper degrees--but not more than God. You are
not to seek your highest happiness from them. You are
not to be more solicitous to secure them, than heaven.
It is of a 'supreme love' which the apostle speaks.

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is
not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter
more than Me is not worthy of Me." Matthew 10:37

Christian professors, there is need to have these solemn,
yet righteous demands, sent with a voice of thunder into
your places of business and scenes of domestic comfort.
You have need to be told that . . .
all this engrossing solicitude about business;
all this eager haste to be rich;
all this ambition for larger houses;
all this taste for elegance, show and fashion;
all this competition for name and fame,
which leads to a neglect of salvation, to departure from
God, to indifference to heaven--is the love of the world,
which is incompatible with the love of the Father!
And not less so . . .
that supreme concern about domestic enjoyment,
that taste for fashionable amusements, or even
that more refined and simple love of home-bred delights,
which leaves out God, salvation, heaven and eternity!

Here, here, I repeat, is your peril.

Here the enemy with which you have to do battle!

It is not vice.

It is not profligacy.

It is worldly-mindedness!

Do we not see mere professors throwing
themselves wholly--body, soul, and spirit . . .
into their trade,
into the cherished objects of their ambition,
into their entire devotedness to a worldly life.

In these things, and for them, they live!
These things . . .
bind round and overgrow their heart,
stifle all serious thoughts,
smother all heavenly desires.

The road that leads to destruction is broad enough
to comprise many parallel paths. And there is one path
crowded with professors of religion, walking in company,
with cheerful appearance, and elegant attire, and elastic
step--but still walking to perdition! Oh, yes, there is a
way 'through the church'--a decent, flowery, down-hill
way to eternal destruction, and there are many who
take that road!

Who is the Head of the Church? Is it Jesus the Christ or is it our leaders that have been appointed by whatever ritual or procedure? Constantine while seemingly professing Christianity as the true Religion, placed himself in charge of the Christian movement (the replacing Jesus as the Head so to speak) and proceeded to carry out his own agenda, many regarded him as God led and many still do. The problem with this concept is only Jesus the Christ is declared as the Head of the true Church. The Holy Spirit is declared as the link between those who believe and the Ascended Saviour and based on the evidence in the Bible those declaring the Words of the Saviour through the intervention of the Holy Spirit of God are established with the Power of the Living God. It would be quite easy to avoid those claiming other things than those established in the Bible if we were humble and read the Bible expecting the Author to teach us through the link of His Holy Spirit, instead of Intellectual prowess only ascribed to a few.

The office of the Pope in itself is not established in God's word, if it is then I wish someone would direct me to this new passage. There is a spirit that has worked overtime to create errors in or reasoning and assist us to follow a path that leads us away from the Living God and this Spirit is declared as the Spirit of the Anti-Christ in the Bible. Many Churches whether they fall within the Reformist group or whether they stick to the original Roman Catholic precepts simply choose to follow the teachings of men which are mostly errors as opposed to following the direct teachings of God through Bible Study and Prayer and hearing the Word as spoken by one inpired by God whose words will be confirmed in the scriptures and establish in the the Power of God.

It seems to me that the way of the Lord Jesus requires due diligence and humbleness and we get no credit or boost from self inflating displays of intellect and fleshly performances only God is Glorified. All of us need to be diligent in our study of the Word and our discussions should seek to uplift and improve each other instead of destroying or sealing the condemnation of the other. Remember "All have sinned and fall short of the glory" so we need to let our lights shine so that it may shine a light into the darkness of many who are on a path to destruction. If we continue along the path of promoted Intellectual prowess which involves a fewer number of persons over the Plan of God which includes His Love for the people in the World then since God cannot fail we may find ourselves on the outside of His Plan so we will have failed. Let Good overcome us and go before us so that the bad around us will be exposed in a way more powerful than our words. Just my two cents.