Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The point of the question was that it was in response to the previous post which included divination. Many say that christians should not use that as it is occultic, I just wondered whether others thought this was so. I don't know.

Okay. While there may be some who do such things thinking it has something to do with the occult, the two I know have nothing to do with the occult and those I've hard of using this technique were not involved in anything occultic. From what I've seen it seems to just be a talent or gift that some folks have and for them, it works.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Deuteronomy 29:29a The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: I don't claim to know...all that I (or anyone) can do is speculate with what little knowledge is given to us in God's word; theref

Amen!!! The past is passed, so let's just get past it. As the Apostle Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said in Philippians 3:10-14: Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power

If the Comforter was gone completely, there would be no 'tribulation saints.' For how can one be saved without the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9)? Therefore we have two choices: a. Holy Spirit taken away w

  • Advanced Member

The preterist teaching was invented by Jesuits.

Futurist teaching including dispensationalism was invented by Jesuits, such as Belarmine, and Lacunza, aka Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.


Again, why would the Jesuits "invent" a doctrine that is not only anti-Catholic to the core but also pro-Jew in the land of Palestine? You won't find too many papists teaching dispensationalism.

Also, preterism was around long before the Jesuits arrived.

Sounds like you've been drinking some of Texx Marrs' kool-aid. Next you'll be saying that G.W. Bush is an Anunnaki, Timothy McVeigh was an undercover FBI agent and the Jews in Palestine are really Ashkenazi Turks.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Again, why would the Jesuits "invent" a doctrine that is not only anti-Catholic to the core but also pro-Jew in the land of Palestine? You won't find too many papists teaching dispensationalism.

Also, preterism was around long before the Jesuits arrived.

Sounds like you've been drinking some of Texx Marrs' kool-aid. Next you'll be saying that G.W. Bush is an Anunnaki, Timothy McVeigh was an undercover FBI agent and the Jews in Palestine are really Ashkenazi Turks.


Actually the teaching is not anti catholic. It was, in fact the main aid to Catholic emantipation in the 1800s.

The teaching of the whole church from before and after the reformation, was that the Pope was Antichrist. Then along came Darby and taught the Jesuit teacing that the Antichrist was future, and bingo, the Papacy is off the hook, and we have to look for someone else.
Preterism has the same result.

Remember the poe calls himself "The Vicar of Christ". This means exactly the same as Antichrist. Edited by Invicta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Catholic emancipation? Whatever that means. I guess you don't believe in freedom of religion.



From the most prominent dispensationalist of all time, Clarence Larkin:

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

Sounds like this Jesuit invention wasn't really an invention of theirs but had been around long before the Jesuits.

So much for dispensationalists not teaching the Pope is the antichrist.

Again, you really, really don't know what you are talking about in this area. It's comical to hear you mention that dispensationalists don't teach the Pope is the antichrist, which by the way, there are really some problems biblically with that teaching.

The real heart of the issue is the nation of Israel. You see, both the preterist and historical view of prophecy denies Israel their rightful place as future heirs and is usually supported by those who hate the Jew. This is really the heart of the matter. Because the futurist view is the only one that recognizes Israel their rightful place as heirs to the millennial kingdom of Christ with the capital of the world being located in Jersualem and the covenants and promises still belonging to them. Europe has especially always had an issue with this. Just by you disparaging mention of "the converted Jew" (like that should make it even more devious) speaks volumes about what is the heart of the issue herre.

Edited by Wilchbla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know two men who can do this and the occult has nothing to do with it. Somehow it's a gift some possess which science has yet to fully grasp.

Now, what's the point of the question?


Gift, anyone can do it, & it works with natural gas pipe lines.

It will work with a water line.

All that is needed is the two rods & a steady hand. Coat hangers works great if you have no welding rods
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Gift, anyone can do it, & it works with natural gas pipe lines.

It will work with a water line.

All that is needed is the two rods & a steady hand. Coat hangers works great if you have no welding rods

I've never been able to do it. When I first moved into this house my Dad used two welding rods to find the water lines, gas lines and sewer lines. He was spot on.

My best friend in schools dad used to dig wells and that's how he found the best place to dig a well.

I don't know how it works, but it does. I saw a show on TV where some scientists tried to figure it out and they couldn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members


Gen. 44:15 And Joseph said u
nt
o them, What deed [is] this that ye have done? w
ot
ye n
ot
that such a man as I can certainly divine?



Right. Likewise we can find water without a witching stick. But you quoted a man who mentions this BEFORE the law of Moses and there was therefore no law against it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I find the accusations against me & my Scriptural beliefs very ill-informed.

Am I the only one on page 11 to use Scripture?

Regardless of whether or not I agree with a particular post, I for one appreciate that you put forth Scripture. The personal attacks, snide comments and accusations that often crop up in some posts is unbecoming of Christ followers and a very poor witness, especially to those who might be visiting or lurking.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Catholic emancipation? Whatever that means. I guess you don't believe in freedom of religion.



From the most prominent dispensationalist of all time, Clarence Larkin:

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

Sounds like this Jesuit invention wasn't really an invention of theirs but had been around long before the Jesuits.

So much for dispensationalists not teaching the Pope is the antichrist.

Again, you really, really don't know what you are talking about in this area. It's comical to hear you mention that dispensationalists don't teach the Pope is the antichrist, which by the way, there are really some problems biblically with that teaching.

The real heart of the issue is the nation of Israel. You see, both the preterist and historical view of prophecy denies Israel their rightful place as future heirs and is usually supported by those who hate the Jew. This is really the heart of the matter. Because the futurist view is the only one that recognizes Israel their rightful place as heirs to the millennial kingdom of Christ with the capital of the world being located in Jersualem and the covenants and promises still belonging to them. Europe has especially always had an issue with this. Just by you disparaging mention of "the converted Jew" (like that should make it even more devious) speaks volumes about what is the heart of the issue herre.



Clarence Larkin maybe the most prominent dispensationalist of all time, but not the most truthful. If you had actually read the early church writers, you will find that they taught that 2 Thess. 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. Referred to the Roman Emperor and the Roman Empire. Paul said 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. So the early church knew. And what they knew, they told us. They told us that when the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the man of sin, Antichrist would be revealed.

The Roman Empire was taken out of the way when Constantine removed it to Byzantium. This allowed the pope to take power over Europe, which he never would if The Empire had still been in place. The Waldensians mark their separation from Rome as the time when the Bishop of Rome was Sylvester, who was Pope at the time of the removal, so obviously they also understood it so. The Noble Lesson (You will find it online) of the Waldensians written in about 1160 mentions only one pope, Sylvester over 800 years earlier, so he must have been a great enemy of them. Their "Treatise on Antichrist" written in the following century gives their views on that subject.

You will notice that the order of events in verses 1-3 is in the opposite order from what dispies teach. 1, falling away, 2. Man of sin, 3. coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

We will meet the Lord after the Antichrist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Catholic emancipation? Whatever that means. I guess you don't believe in freedom of religion.


The Catolic Church is not just a religion, it is a political power. It was restricted in our country because it tried to overthrow it, not for religious reasons. The Pope claims dominion, not over my country, but yours also. The Pope is a king, his head appears on Euro coins issued by the Vatican. Rome has never retracted any of her laws that says she can exectute heretics like you and I. She has made it plain that she would bump us off if she still had the power, but she doesn't need to, as she is getting her way by stealth. If we taught tha the pope is antichrist as our forefathers did, Rome would not have the power that she does today.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Clarence Larkin maybe the most prominent dispensationalist of all time, but not the most truthful. If you had actually read the early church writers, you will find that they taught that 2 Thess. 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. Referred to the Roman Emperor and the Roman Empire. Paul said 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. So the early church knew. And what they knew, they told us. They told us that when the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the man of sin, Antichrist would be revealed.

The Roman Empire was taken out of the way when Constantine removed it to Byzantium. This allowed the pope to take power over Europe, which he never would if The Empire had still been in place. The Waldensians mark their separation from Rome as the time when the Bishop of Rome was Sylvester, who was Pope at the time of the removal, so obviously they also understood it so. The Noble Lesson (You will find it online) of the Waldensians written in about 1160 mentions only one pope, Sylvester over 800 years earlier, so he must have been a great enemy of them. Their "Treatise on Antichrist" written in the following century gives their views on that subject.

You will notice that the order of events in verses 1-3 is in the opposite order from what dispies teach. 1, falling away, 2. Man of sin, 3. coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

We will meet the Lord after the Antichrist


"They told us that when the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the man of sin, Antichrist would be revealed."

That did not happen. The Roman Empire fell and no antichrist, no mark of the beast, no world government, no plagues, no bowls of wrath, etc. etc. Those things are yet future.

We will be removed BEFORE the Lord pours out his wrath: Luke 21:34-37.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"They told us that when the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the man of sin, Antichrist would be revealed."

That did not happen. The Roman Empire fell and no antichrist, no mark of the beast, no world government, no plagues, no bowls of wrath, etc. etc. Those things are yet future.

We will be removed BEFORE the Lord pours out his wrath: Luke 21:34-37.


Invicta holds to that strange teachings & propagates it at ever opportunity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The mystery of iniquity was already at work during Paul's time. There was no Pope during Paul's time. So it has to be someone or something else who could have been revealed during Paul's time but wasn't. Maybe the Pope could have filled the role at one time but not anymore. I do agree that the Pope is an antichrist and the RCC fits the description of the whore of Revelation but this doesn't mean that they are these things in the fullest sense. Most likely the RCC is one of the daughters of the whore.

There is a big part of the world out there that was never nor will ever be controlled by the Pope. So he can't be the beast in my estimation. Unless, of course you believe in the conspiracies of former Jesuit Alberto Rivera who has the RCC creating everything from Islam to Jim Jones to Hitler and Lenin as well as every war and form of government since the 1800.

And you still miss the point I made with Larkin's quote. You said that dispensationalism doesn't teach that the Pope is an (or thee) antichrist and I gave you a quote from the most influential dispensationalist of all time where he clearly says that the theology does teach these things.

So you should know what you are talking about before making yourself look silly again.

Edited by Wilchbla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Invicta holds to that strange teachings & propagates it at ever opportunity.

The line of interpretation Invicta follows is basically the historical method. That understanding is that Revelation was written as future history in general terms. Keep alert, the whole period from Pentecost to Jesus return is "end-times" & we must therefore watch & pray, serving our Lord in readiness for his coming.

I'm happy with that, provided is doesn't exclude (partial) "Preterism," which Invicta does exclude, as do all of you who accept a 90s date for Revelation & ignore Rev. 11 about the yet future destruction of Jerusalem & the temple.

Prophecy will NOT completed until Jesus returns in glory to bring about the resurrection & NH&NE, & to judge the wicked.

After his prophecy of the destruction & the days of vengeance falling on the generation that persistently rejected its Messiah, Jesus predicts Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away and commands us all: Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

And, remembering the thread title, in principle ANY "mark" which gives approval to the ungodly, to the exclusion of Christians, is A mark of the beast. The latest is "gay marriage."
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member


"They told us that when the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the man of sin, Antichrist would be revealed."

That did not happen. The Roman Empire fell and no antichrist, no mark of the beast, no world government, no plagues, no bowls of wrath, etc. etc. Those things are yet future.

We will be removed BEFORE the Lord pours out his wrath: Luke 21:34-37.

32
Verily I say u
nt
o you, This generation shall n
ot
pass away, till all be fulfilled.

34
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

35
For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

36
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accou
nt
ed worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Thanks for posting Scripture to support your teaching. We clearly agree that that Scripture is important for living believers. I have added the preceding verses to your quote. We need to note that Jesus' prophecy against this generation relates to the destruction. I hope all agree on that, though I know that some will insist that aspects of the prophecy relate to "end times." I'll pass that point for this post.


The question is, are the prophesies in 2 Thes. 2 & Rev. 11 concerning the destruction? If we are constrained by Scripture, they must be. There is no suggestion in the NT of a future man-made temple. The New Covenant temple is built with living stones - Christian believers. There can be no future temple, & no future sacrifices.

15
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16
This is the covena
nt
that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws i
nt
o their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall n
ot
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.



The temple will be taken possession of by that man of sin - the destruction prophesied by Jesus has to take place before Jesus returns for resurrection. Why did Jesus not destroy the temple immediately when Stephen, by the Holy Spirit, declared the old (circumcision) covenant ended: Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. The reason is that Jews were still being saved. The Gospel was still being preached in the temple & Jerusalem, & God would not slay the righteous with the wicked. (Gen. 18)


So, who & what delayed the destruction? Did Paul give the Thessalonians information that we do not know?

5
Remember ye n
ot
, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

7
For the mystery of iniquity d
ot
h already work: only he who now letteth will let, u
nt
il he be taken out of the way.



Jesus gave clear directions to the Jerusalem Christians so they would know when the destruction of the city was imminent:

20
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21
Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mou
nt
ains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let n
ot
them that are in the cou
nt
ries e
nt
er therei
nt
o.

While James led the Jerusalem church, even through persecution, destruction was withheld, but when James was murdered, he who now letteth was taken out of the way. There was no further restraint โ€“ utter wickedness ensued.
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:

10
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received n
ot
the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12
That they all might be damned who believed n
ot
the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.



What about the brightness of his coming ? Remember what Jesus said when he told his vineyard parable:

15
So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do u
nt
o them?

16
He shall come and destroy these husbandmen
, and shall give the vineyard to
ot
hers. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.


He came (with his agents, the Roman armies) & destroyed those husbandmen, & gave the โ€œvineyardโ€ to his church, comprising Jew & Gentile believers.
But when the king heard [thereof], he was wr
ot
h: and he se
nt
forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.


We will be removed BEFORE the Lord pours out his wrath: Luke 21:34-37.

Yes, the Jerusalem church was removed before the wrath of God fell on the city, & the resurrection will remove believers before his wrath falls on the wicked in final judgme
nt
.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"They told us that when the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the man of sin, Antichrist would be revealed."

That did not happen. The Roman Empire fell and no antichrist, no mark of the beast, no world government, no plagues, no bowls of wrath, etc. etc. Those things are yet future.

We will be removed BEFORE the Lord pours out his wrath: Luke 21:34-37.


The Antichrist was revealed in the Papacy, as practically the whole church recognised. Only modern teachings do naot accept that, and that has allowed the RCC to flourish, which it could not if we preached as our spiritual ancestors did.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Antichrist was revealed in the Papacy, as practically the whole church recognised. Only modern teachings do naot accept that, and that has allowed the RCC to flourish, which it could not if we preached as our spiritual ancestors did.

That is something I've found to be very curious. I was born again in 1981 so when I started reading and learning about Chirstianity most of what I read was from the 1970s and then the early 80s. Virtually all of what I read attacked the RCC as ungodly, Catholics as non-Christians and said the pope was the antichrist.

Later as I read some of the writings of Christians from past centuries, I saw the same sort of thing.

Then it seems sometime in the 80s and really taking hold by the 90s, there was a major shift away from such teaching. Not only did such teaching mostly come to a stop, but suddenly Catholics were being hailed as Christians, the RCC a Christian church and the pope (John Paul II at the time) as a great man of God.

I'm not sure, but I think much of this, at least in America, had to do with the rise of anti-communism, the great anti-communist crusader President Reagan reaching out to and embracing the RCC and the pope, the rabid ecumenicism of the Promise Keepers. Then it just spread like wildfire.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That is something I've found to be very curious. I was born again in 1981 so when I started reading and learning about Chirstianity most of what I read was from the 1970s and then the early 80s. Virtually all of what I read attacked the RCC as ungodly, Catholics as non-Christians and said the pope was the antichrist.

Later as I read some of the writings of Christians from past centuries, I saw the same sort of thing.

Then it seems sometime in the 80s and really taking hold by the 90s, there was a major shift away from such teaching. Not only did such teaching mostly come to a stop, but suddenly Catholics were being hailed as Christians, the RCC a Christian church and the pope (John Paul II at the time) as a great man of God.

I'm not sure, but I think much of this, at least in America, had to do with the rise of anti-communism, the great anti-communist crusader President Reagan reaching out to and embracing the RCC and the pope, the rabid ecumenicism of the Promise Keepers. Then it just spread like wildfire.



I'm sure, John, that what you mentioned helped it along as far as the secular world is concerned and even to some extent in Christian circles. I would say that those such as Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and other New Evangelicals are more to blame where Christians are concerned. Because of their willingness to hold hands with the RCC and stand beside them in joint efforts it helped to break down that wall of separation between true Christians and the false religion of Catholicism. Sadly, many churches have followed New Evangelicalism in its compromising path instead of holding true to Bible principles.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm the last one to hold hands with the RCC but you still run into eschatology problems teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. He just doesn't hold that much power in this present world. And then there's the problem of which Pope. All of them? How can that be when the beast will be one specific individual. Also, Daniel seems to suggest that the Antichrist will come out of the Syria or Jordan. Will the Pope be an Arab?

It's funny that many of the same people who believe that the Pope is the antichrist also reject the conspiracies of Alberto Rivera. If what Rivera says is true then you can say that the Pope is the beast but I know few Christians who believe what the man claimed. One of them is that the RCC literally invented Islam and that the Quran was penned by Mohammed's wife's (who was Roman Catholic) cousin.

In any case, the Anglcian church and many of the churches of the reformation have returned to the RCC. So you can't blame dispensationalism on that and the fact is that most dispensationalist I know personally teach that the Pope is the beast and that the RCC is the whore of Revelation. I don't care what Darby may have or may not have believed. Most teach this and whoever says otherwise doesn't know what is going on within the movement.

I do not endorse this website but here is a link:

http://www.redicecre...holicislam.html

Edited by Wilchbla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Promise keepers helped the RCC have a better image, & during that time many of the SBC Churches embraced the RCC as well as many other false teaching churches giving them much creditably. Seems the Promise keepers did not last to long.

I remember seeing on our local TV, a broadcast of the local large SBC church several of the men that when to promise keepers talking about how good it was & how wonderful it was to worship with the RCC church members & others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm the last one to hold hands with the RCC but you still run into eschatology problems teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. He just doesn't hold that much power in this present world. And then there's the problem of which Pope. All of them? How can that be when the beast will be one specific individual. Also, Daniel seems to suggest that the Antichrist will come out of the Syria or Jordan. Will the Pope be an Arab?

It's funny that many of the same people who believe that the Pope is the antichrist also reject the conspiracies of Alberto Rivera. If what Rivera says is true then you can say that the Pope is the beast but I know few Christians who believe what the man claimed. One of them is that the RCC literally invented Islam and that the Quran was penned by Mohammed's wife's (who was Roman Catholic) cousin.

In any case, the Anglcian church and many of the churches of the reformation have returned to the RCC. So you can't blame dispensationalism on that and the fact is that most dispensationalist I know personally teach that the Pope is the beast and that the RCC is the whore of Revelation. I don't care what Darby may have or may not have believed. Most teach this and whoever says otherwise doesn't know what is going on within the movement.

I do not endorse this website but here is a link:

http://www.redicecre...holicislam.html


It may be that many that believe the pope will be the anti-christ, believes it will be the one who is pope of the RCC during the coming tribulations & great tribulations, & year period, which takes place right after Jesus comes for His own.

I've never heard anyone locally say it would be the pope, but a few have said it might be.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm sure, John, that what you mentioned helped it along as far as the secular world is concerned and even to some extent in Christian circles. I would say that those such as Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and other New Evangelicals are more to blame where Christians are concerned. Because of their willingness to hold hands with the RCC and stand beside them in joint efforts it helped to break down that wall of separation between true Christians and the false religion of Catholicism. Sadly, many churches have followed New Evangelicalism in its compromising path instead of holding true to Bible principles.

I agree. Billy Graham did much of the groundwork of making it acceptable for Christians to yoke with the RCC. Falwell and his "moral majority" which virtually worshiped Reagan moved it along even faster with their massive appeal during the Reagan years. The Promise Keepers latched onto this and spread it even further within the Christian churches across America.

We see similar going on right now with Christian leaders, churches and organizations yoking with Mormons, calling Mormons Christians, accepting Mormonism as a form of Christianity.

Many churches today are open to accept almost anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm the last one to hold hands with the RCC but you still run into eschatology problems teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. He just doesn't hold that much power in this present world. And then there's the problem of which Pope. All of them? How can that be when the beast will be one specific individual. Also, Daniel seems to suggest that the Antichrist will come out of the Syria or Jordan. Will the Pope be an Arab?

It's funny that many of the same people who believe that the Pope is the antichrist also reject the conspiracies of Alberto Rivera. If what Rivera says is true then you can say that the Pope is the beast but I know few Christians who believe what the man claimed. One of them is that the RCC literally invented Islam and that the Quran was penned by Mohammed's wife's (who was Roman Catholic) cousin.

In any case, the Anglcian church and many of the churches of the reformation have returned to the RCC. So you can't blame dispensationalism on that and the fact is that most dispensationalist I know personally teach that the Pope is the beast and that the RCC is the whore of Revelation. I don't care what Darby may have or may not have believed. Most teach this and whoever says otherwise doesn't know what is going on within the movement.

I do not endorse this website but here is a link:

http://www.redicecre...holicislam.html

It's been some time since I've read much on this, but as I recall many who pointed to the fact there will be many antichrists, which they say each pope has been one, and they expect some future pope to be THE antichrist.

Many people did believer Alberto until research was finally done which proved he was a lifelong liar, fraud, and seeker of power and fame. It's better to leave such behind and stick to what is true.

Has every pope been an antichrist? I can't say for certain but when reading the history of the RCC it certainly seems most of the popes were outright evil and anti-Christian. Will a future pope be THE antichrist? I don't know but it seems to be a valid theory.

What is known is that most Christians until the past several decades did view the RCC as the evil antichrist church and popes as an antichrist.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Promise keepers helped the RCC have a better image, & during that time many of the SBC Churches embraced the RCC as well as many other false teaching churches giving them much creditably. Seems the Promise keepers did not last to long.

I remember seeing on our local TV, a broadcast of the local large SBC church several of the men that when to promise keepers talking about how good it was & how wonderful it was to worship with the RCC church members & others.

Yes, the Promise Keepers went to extremes in order to be ecumenical and accepting of the RCC. They drew huge crowds during much of the 80s and into the 90s where they spread this acceptance of the RCC and ecumenicism of virtually any church or group calling itself Christian.

Such a shame, they did have some good points but all that was for nothing when mixed with all the garbage they wallowed in.

The Promise Keepers are still around, but like most all things, once the new wore off people went looking for something else. If only folks would look for Christ and seek Him out in Scripture rather than looking to the latest man or group that "sounds good" and following them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It may be that many that believe the pope will be the anti-christ, believes it will be the one who is pope of the RCC during the coming tribulations & great tribulations, & year period, which takes place right after Jesus comes for His own.

I've never heard anyone locally say it would be the pope, but a few have said it might be.


The thing is that according to Paul the mystery of iniquity (aka the man of sin) was already at work in his day. Since there was no Pope at that time apparently it can be anyone at any given time in human history but for whatever reason has been held back. Maybe the Pope qualified as this at one time but I just don't see this anymore.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It's been some time since I've read much on this, but as I recall many who pointed to the fact there will be many antichrists, which they say each pope has been one, and they expect some future pope to be THE antichrist.

Many people did believer Alberto until research was finally done which proved he was a lifelong liar, fraud, and seeker of power and fame. It's better to leave such behind and stick to what is true.

Has every pope been an antichrist? I can't say for certain but when reading the history of the RCC it certainly seems most of the popes were outright evil and anti-Christian. Will a future pope be THE antichrist? I don't know but it seems to be a valid theory.

What is known is that most Christians until the past several decades did view the RCC as the evil antichrist church and popes as an antichrist.


Yes, every pope was and is an antichrist but this can be said about many many different world leaders great and small. So what qualifies the Pope as being the Antichrist over any of these other men?

I think a lot of this may come out of the fact that the Anglican church, as well as the other reformation churches, believed they were the true kingdom of God on earth and the RCC was the whore. Maybe at one point in history you could buy into this but there really isn't much difference from the Church of England and Lutheran from the RCC anymore. From all I've read there's a big movement within the Anglican church to rejoin with the RCC. You can't say that dispensationalism has caused this. The most separated churches that I know of personally are dispensationalist.

As far as Alberto Rivera I'm not sure if the guy was such a fraud as they say. Apparently the papists put on a big smear campaign against him. He did get into some money problems but this doesn't mean what he said wasn't true or at least mostly true. Look at Kent Hovind.

It is true that Mohammed's favorite wife was Roman Catholic (as was, interestingly, Yassar Arafat's) and his favorite child by her was named Fatima which is a important name in Catholic mythology. Edited by Wilchbla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

The Antichrist was revealed in the Papacy, as practically the whole church recognised. Only modern teachings do naot accept that, and that has allowed the RCC to flourish, which it could not if we preached as our spiritual ancestors did.


A future pope may well be the 'false prophet' but not the Antichrist. There have been many 'antichrists' but there will only be one ANTICHRIST during the coming tribulation. (Rev. 13).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 24 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

ร—
ร—
  • Create New...