1. Romanism holds that salvation is by works; there is no place for effectual calling, the Father drawing sinners to the Son, etc.
2. Romanism denies the deity of the Son through its denial of the sufficiency of his atonement; if His atonement is insufficient, at best Christ was on a par with the angels.
3. Romanism denies the return of Christ in the flesh in that it has its own pseudo-Christ (I prefer to call him "the antichrist") in its pope, to whom its people look as God's representative on earth and the leader of a "Christendom" that they hope will conquer the earth and usher in a golden age. Wasn't Cortez and others like motivated by such thoughts in their conquests of heathen lands?
I can see this hyper-literalism you apply to the pertinent passages could open up many other "cans of worms". For example, the epistles speak of believers abiding in Christ and thereby not sinning, Christ dying not merely for the sins of the Jews, but for the whole world also, etc.
As for dogma and office, surely you must concede that the antichist has to have office?
I'm also suspicious of a lot of what passes for "Scripture interpreting Scripture" - it sounds like a wonderful principal, but I'm far from convinced it's always being applied where it's claimed, especially if the "key" passages employed in such interpretations have themselves been misinterpreted in the first instance.
flunky1 said: I'm weary of the sycophancy on this site at times (except where it's sarcastically couched)!!! Come on, let's be man enough to beg to differ.
Who do you think is being sycophantic in this thread? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
This is about the most I have witnessed you participate in a thread like this. You usually don't get yourself too involved in eschatological threads.
True, true..... but for me this subject isn't primarily about "eschatology" but rather is one of "hermeneutics" and the twisting of the Scripures in an attempt to prove a preconceived idea. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> but once again, your "reasoning" is more eisogesis than exegesis. The denial of the Trinity is to deny that the Godhead consists of three persons; Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, etc., cf. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. The pope and the RCC both unequivocally affirm this doctrine. The denial of the deity of Christ is likewise a matter of His being God of very God and not one that is concerned with the extent or sufficiency of the atonement, cf. The Chalcedon Creed. And lastly, as to the matter of the return of Christ in the flesh, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged conquering of earth by the RCC and the setting up of an alleged golden age. Simply put, the Apostle John was inspired to write what he did to address specific truths and to refute those who denied them, e.g., the Gnostics, both in his day and all those who would hold similar beliefs throughout history. On these three particular issues, neither the Roman State Church nor the pope deny any of them.
You are twisting these texts to fit your private doctrine driven, no doubt, by your personal hostility toward the RCC and its leader. Once again, the RCC stands rightly condemned for the errors it actually holds and teaches. There is no need to fabricate things and convolute the Scriptures in the process so as to suit your own preconceived ideas concerning the identity of the Antichrist.
An interesting exposition on the nature and characteristics of the Antichrist, and why the papacy is not a candidate can be read in the article linked below:
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> but once again, your "reasoning" is more eisogesis than exegesis. The denial of the Trinity is to deny that the Godhead consists of three persons; Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, etc., cf. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. The pope and the RCC both unequivocally affirm this doctrine. The denial of the deity of Christ is likewise a matter of His being God of very God and not one that is concerned with the extent or sufficiency of the atonement, cf. The Chalcedon Creed. And lastly, as to the matter of the return of Christ in the flesh, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged conquering of earth by the RCC and the setting up of an alleged golden age. Simply put, the Apostle John was inspired to write what he did to address specific truths and to refute those who denied them, e.g., the Gnostics, both in his day and all those who would hold similar beliefs throughout history. On these three particular issues, neither the Roman State Church nor the pope deny any of them.
You are twisting these texts to fit your private doctrine driven, no doubt, by your personal hostility toward the RCC and its leader. Once again, the RCC stands rightly condemned for the errors it actually holds and teaches. There is no need to fabricate things and convolute the Scriptures in the process so as to suit your own preconceived ideas concerning the identity of the Antichrist.
In His Grace,
Is it possible to engage in debate with you without recourse (on your part) to sarcasm and flippant smileys? It ain't how to win friends and influence people (apart from the sycophants who are scared to disagree with you).
As to your answer, your accusation that I am imposing my preconceived ideas on Scripture is what you want to believe. But I have shown that the papacy does indeed deny the Godhead, etc, albeit not in the hyper-literal way you insist to convenience your argument. And on that point, I could, by the same petty token you employ, accuse you of imposing the hyper-literal sense of the term "denial" just to suit your own preconception that the pope just cannot be the antichrist.
A final note on my "preconceived ideas" on antichrist. For years, I held that the antichirst was going to be some future world leader. But I looked at church history and saw what the papacy did and examined its claims. I consulted with Scripture, and saw that the papacy fitted the description of the antichrist. But my suspicion is, even if your idea of antichrist were to come on the scene tomorrow, you'd still not accept it.
Thanks for the link. I've just spent some rewarding time with this soundly presented essay. How is it that I have either never heard, or sub-consciously rejected many of the premises for perusal contained therein? I think maybe it might have something to do with my utter disdain for the eschatology of the premillennial dispensationalists.
I highly recommend at least the reading of this essay for consideration by all who have participated on this thread.
Denny
Roms 3:22-24
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
A final note on my "preconceived ideas" on antichrist. For years, I held that the antichirst was going to be some future world leader. But I looked at church history and saw what the papacy did and examined its claims. I consulted with Scripture, and saw that the papacy fitted the description of the antichrist. But my suspicion is, even if your idea of antichrist were to come on the scene tomorrow, you'd still not accept it.
When Pope John Paul II repeatedly summoned the leaders of the world's pagan religions and their idols to his temple, in obvious fulfillment of biblical prophesy, the reaction of most conservative Protestant theologians was one of indifference. What difference did it make? The head of Roman Church couldn't possibly be the Antichrist. And, of course, when he died, they were proven right (based on their own flawed view of scripture).
speratus said: The use of the definite article in scripture does not necessarily refer to a single person (Dan. 8:23; 2 Tim. 3:17; Matt. 22:21, etc.). The Papists themselves refer to their whole line of Popes as if it were one person.
1) Schink's exegesis is fatally flawed in that he fails to interpret the Thessalonian passages in their immediate CONTEXT!! [color:"red"]A text out of context is nothing more than pretext.[/color]
2) Additionally, both you and Schink have failed to rightly use the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture, choosing rather to begin with a prejudicial presupposition and then set out to justify it by twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction. You have not, as is typical, interacted with the passages quoted several times by both myself and Brad from 1John. In those passages, there are specific "denials" which reveal the identify of the Antichrist, along with his precursors; aka: "many". None of the identifying marks (doctrine) can be said to apply to the pope, whether the man or the office.
speratus said: Schink does interact with the relevant texts and thoroughly refutes your non-scriptural theory of a futuristic Antichrist.
Yes, Schink does "interact" with the relevant texts, but he twists their clear meaning and adds to them, something which the Scripture itself condemns, so as to try and make his case that the Antichrist is the Roman pope. On one hand he admits to the perspicuity of what John writes in regard to the Antichrist, but on the other denies it and adds his own elements to it!! Here is a perfect example:
Quote
part of this apostasy will be, according to I John 2:22; 4:3, that Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus is come into the flesh. The Pope indeed calls Jesus the Christ, but he robs Jesus of that which makes Him the Christ, that His merits alone have earned for us forgiveness of all sin, life and salvation. The Pope does not deny the fact of Jesus’ incarnation, but he denies the purpose for which He came into the flesh, to be the sole Mediator between God and man. The Pope nullifies the merits of Christ by teaching that we must at least in part work out our own salvation by our works; that we must cancel the punishment for our sins by fasts, prayers, alms, and other works, or that we must have the works of supererogation done by saints put to our credit; that the Mass is an ever repeated sacrifice for sin.
jana said: There are many antichrists, but to know the ONE??-- we will be surprised, I'm sure.
First off.... welcome to The Highway Discussion Board! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />
Yes, there are indeed "many" antichrists and the ONE AntiChrist is yet to come. However, I seriously doubt I will be surprised, for I shall not likely be living when he makes his appearance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
