Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Pope Francis the Rev False Prophet?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Clearly most of us can't be bothered to learn the distinction between false prophet and antichrist, so how about for the sake of moving the thread forward, you just pretend that every time someone says "antichrist," they mean "false prophet," and respond to them accordingly?
    It's not a matter of "learning" anything, it's a matter of just reading scripture to know there are separate characters in Rev. Most people, I'm assuming, are referring to the Beast of Rev as antichrist.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      It's not a matter of "learning" anything, it's a matter of just reading scripture to know there are separate characters in Rev.
      If I read and remember, then I'm pretty sure that what I just did is "learn." As far as most of us are apparently concerned, you're splitting hairs with respect to antichrist/false prophet as well. If there's a difference, none of us particularly cares.
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        If I read and remember, then I'm pretty sure that what I just did is "learn." As far as most of us are apparently concerned, you're splitting hairs with respect to antichrist/false prophet as well. If there's a difference, none of us particularly cares.
        I care.

        Comment


        • #64
          If we're actually going back to classical Protestant positions, didn't the Reformers generally interpret the RCC of its day as the Antichrist? Of course, the historicist view of Revelation has entirely fallen out of fashion today to the point where virtually nobody holds to it.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            If we're actually going back to classical Protestant positions, didn't the Reformers generally interpret the RCC of its day as the Antichrist? Of course, the historicist view of Revelation has entirely fallen out of fashion today to the point where virtually nobody holds to it.
            Yes, it was the view of the reformers that the RCC was the AntiChrist, then they both excommunicated each other (actually it was Luther and the Pope of the time.) I prefer the historical view of Revelation. It makes more sense than the fad view of it.
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              If we're actually going back to classical Protestant positions, didn't the Reformers generally interpret the RCC of its day as the Antichrist? Of course, the historicist view of Revelation has entirely fallen out of fashion today to the point where virtually nobody holds to it.
              Being that I have no interest in what past views were held about the pope, did they believe he was the Beast of Rev, the Harlot of Rev, or the false prophet of Rev?

              The historicist view of Revelation is even more retarded than the preterist view (though at least it recognizes the date of Revelation which is pretty indisputable), that's undoubtedly why it fell out of fashion.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by hamster View Post
                Haha, I have been watching youtube videos claiming that in September he's going to reveal the presence of extra-terrestrials and claim they're the new saviors of humanity. Seems like every pope is the anti-christ, has there ever been a time when these guys were like "nah, this Pope's fine."
                Tom Horn and co. got that one wrong. Did they apologise for speaking evil of him ? No wonder so many people despise Christianity, when this kind of behaviour is what it comes up with. At least predator clergy are made to answer for their crimes - why does US Fundamentalism not make its false prophets and Anti-Christ spotters answer for what they do ? Or is propagating lies about others a new form of loving others ?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                  Tom Horn and co. got that one wrong. Did they apologise for speaking evil of him ? No wonder so many people despise Christianity, when this kind of behaviour is what it comes up with. At least predator clergy are made to answer for their crimes - why does US Fundamentalism not make its false prophets and Anti-Christ spotters answer for what they do ? Or is propagating lies about others a new form of loving others ?
                  That might be why pseudo-Christian liberals despise Christianity, but according to John 15:18-19, that isn't the reason the world despises Christianity, at least according to our Lord.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    I'm not one for jumping the gun with trying to identify bible personalities with folks in real-time and I used to hear this many years ago and pretty much shrugged it off as nonsense. But from his acceptance of gay marriage, climate change and aliens, to his call for a "new ecological and economic order," if there was ever a candidate for the false prophet that paves the way for the Beast of Rev, this guy takes the cake.
                    Actually, Pope Francis, as well as all the popes in recent history have affirmed all the basic doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Church, absolutely no change. Actually, many of the reforms liberals want in the church cannot happen, because of foundation beliefs of the Roman Church. The Roman Church remains the the only means of salvation, Gay relationships and marriage remain forbidden.

                    What Pope Francis has advocated was a more compassionate non-judgmental relationships with all inside and outside the church who have rejected the spiritual teachings of the church, and live an openly sinful life style contrary to church teachings. This is line with Vatican II, which the main purpose was to encourage improved relationships with those outside the church.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-20-2016, 08:54 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Actually, Pope Francis, as well as all the popes in recent history have affirmed all the basic doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Church, absolutely no change. Actually, many of the reforms liberals want in the church cannot happen, because of foundation beliefs of the Roman Church. The Roman Church remains the the only means of salvation, Gay relationships and marriage remain forbidden.
                      Huh. Sort of like how it is in the Baha'i faith.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        I'm not one for jumping the gun with trying to identify bible personalities with folks in real-time and I used to hear this many years ago and pretty much shrugged it off as nonsense. But from his acceptance of gay marriage, climate change and aliens, to his call for a "new ecological and economic order," if there was ever a candidate for the false prophet that paves the way for the Beast of Rev, this guy takes the cake.
                        There was a Jew 2,000 years ago who was accused of threatening to destroy the Temple, of leading the people astray, of performing miracles by the power of satan, of profaning the Sabbath, and a few other things. He fits Deuteronomy 13 rather well. He was also accused of being a blasphemer.

                        STM that when the Founder of Christianity can so easily be dismissed as a false prophet, and a ton of other bad stuff, to identify Pope Francis as the Second Beast of Rev 13 carries no weight at all. What people who play these games seem always to forget, is that - if St John meant Rev to be a prediction of events in the far future - its fulfilment may, for all we know, not have begun. It may be thousands of years in the future.

                        People used to write commentaries deploring the unspeakable cruelties of the Woman of Rev 17, whom they identified with the Papacy. Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao came along. It's a bit difficult to identify the Papacy as Babylon the Great, "drunken on the blood of the prophet and saints", when three people come along whose drinking of blood makes the Papacy look like a temperance campaigner. The confidence with which the Papacy was treated as "Satan's masterpiece" (as a Scottish minister writing in the 1850s put it) before the 20th century looks very hollow when one takes into account the activities of those men.

                        Pope Francis does not do the antiChristian thing, and "den[y] that Christ has come in the flesh". Protestants need to take the fable of the Boy who cried "Wolf !" to heart, instead of rashly identifying figures they disapprove of with unlovely figures in Revelation. They have a perfect failure rate so far. By perpetuating this foolishness, they merely spread more nonsense, and make Christianity look even more silly than it already does.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          There was a Jew 2,000 years ago who was accused of threatening to destroy the Temple, of leading the people astray, of performing miracles by the power of satan, of profaning the Sabbath, and a few other things. He fits Deuteronomy 13 rather well. He was also accused of being a blasphemer.

                          STM that when the Founder of Christianity can so easily be dismissed as a false prophet, and a ton of other bad stuff, to identify Pope Francis as the Second Beast of Rev 13 carries no weight at all. What people who play these games seem always to forget, is that - if St John meant Rev to be a prediction of events in the far future - its fulfilment may, for all we know, not have begun. It may be thousands of years in the future.

                          People used to write commentaries deploring the unspeakable cruelties of the Woman of Rev 17, whom they identified with the Papacy. Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao came along. It's a bit difficult to identify the Papacy as Babylon the Great, "drunken on the blood of the prophet and saints", when three people come along whose drinking of blood makes the Papacy look like a temperance campaigner. The confidence with which the Papacy was treated as "Satan's masterpiece" (as a Scottish minister writing in the 1850s put it) before the 20th century looks very hollow when one takes into account the activities of those men.

                          Pope Francis does not do the antiChristian thing, and "den[y] that Christ has come in the flesh". Protestants need to take the fable of the Boy who cried "Wolf !" to heart, instead of rashly identifying figures they disapprove of with unlovely figures in Revelation. They have a perfect failure rate so far. By perpetuating this foolishness, they merely spread more nonsense, and make Christianity look even more silly than it already does.
                          You do have a good point about denying Christ came in the flesh, and I've often wondered about that and what it means or how to apply it to futurism. I'm assuming John was speaking about the First Beast of Rev, not the second. Maybe there will be a point the pope changes views once the deception is fully revealed. After all, he is but an fallible man like us. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians attempting to identify the Beast of Rev, the Harlot, the False Prophet, the end times, etc. Obviously, the Lord knew this would be a problem, but he gave us specific signs anyway, so my guess is the importance of why he gave us signs outweighs the problem of historical misidentification. It keeps the church on its toes and alert. Specific date setting is when it indeed becomes a problem, but I think we all agree this is problem. The problem for you is trying to figure out why the New Testament is full of specific end time signs and why the Lord even told us to know when he's "at the door" if trying to identify the end times is such a dastardly task in your eyes. It's as if you're castigating God himself for giving us those instructions.

                          "Christianity looks even more silly than it already does." Interesting statement. So you think Christianity looks silly?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            "Denying that Christ came in the flesh" was a dig at the Gnostics infiltrating Christianity, who claimed that Christ only looked like a man and only appeared to die on the cross because God can never be encased in mortal, corrupt flesh and can never die. The pope clearly has an antichrist spirit that denies the Son, however, since he says salvation is possible without Christ. He also says that gays and adulterers should be treated like normal churchgoers.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I agree. The problem with using John's criterion by which to judge "antichrist" is that we don't know what John meant, but can only guess. Was John denying that there is a single antichrist by using the term in a broader sense, or was he confirming a single antichrist and setting a specific criterion by which to identify the antichrist. If the former is true, did he change his view after his revelation of end times or does this letter come subsequent to his revelation? If the latter is true, which character in Rev is he referring to? Or is he referring to all the characters of Rev? This is why I never use the term antichrist anymore. I'm always very specific about which character in Rev I'm referring to. It's possible that the coming great deception won't outrightly dismiss Christianity, but will dismiss the literal nature of it and interpret it as more of spiritually symbolic religion. That's definitely the direction liberal Christianity is currently taking it now (in fact, there are so-called liberal Christians that even deny the resurrection occurred) and is easily the direction the pope can take it, whether this pope or some other subsequent pope. I believe the papacy will affirm whichever becomes the populous view, which will eventually be a liberal one, especially when the true church is diminished (either by apostasy or persecution or both).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                Just this alone is becoming a media sensation...





                                Can you just imagine in your wildest imagination what will happen if this guy starts doing miracles. Even the most devout protestants will be swayed by his influence.
                                He may already have done so:

                                http://www.christiantoday.com/articl....her/74803.htm


                                http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-visit-philadelphia-kissing-boy-cerebral-palsy/


                                People don't see miracles, unless they are open to doing so. They can always conceptualise them as something else - what we see depends (as C. S. Lewis pointed out) on where we are standing and on what sort of people we are. If these are true miracles, done by God through the Pope, then blessed be God for them. Miracles from God are miracles from God, no matter who the human agent may be. IMHO it would be beautifully fitting if miracles were worked though the Pope, since the ministry of Our Lord, to which the Pope has been seeking to conform his ministry, was marked by miracles. Then as now, miracles worked through Christians are signs of the Presence of the Kingdom of God.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X