Pope Benedict XVI seated BETWEEN two Cherubim

[jasd]

>>...and our protestant Fathers who were led of God<<

Very briefly – a smidgen of a catalog of historical facts re our Protesting fathers:

Re: Martin Luther

Martin Luther embraced the Immaculate Conception, as well. One need not expand upon his ideas re violence against all Catholics and Jews;

Re: John Calvin

John Calvin imprisoned and had a Spanish contemporary burned alive at the stake for disagreeing with some of nonsensical beliefs – bragging that the fellow bellowed for mercy. “Misericordia!”

Re: John Knox

Was instrumental in passing legislation in Scotland instituting capital punishment for anyone who attended Mass... Every heretic was to be put to death and cities found to be predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed.

Re: John Wesley

“Roman Papacy he [the antichrist] is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin.” (John Wesley, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, p.110).

Yet he wrote this bit ecuminism, following:

“I think you deserve the tenderest regard I can show . . . How much more, if you are a person fearing God (as without question many of you are) . . .

Let us resolve, first, not to hurt one another, to do nothing unkind or unfriendly to each other . . . Let us resolve, secondly, God being our helper, to speak nothing harsh or unkind of each other . . . to say all the good we can, both of and to one another . . . Let us, thirdly, resolve to harbour no unkind thought, no unfriendly temper towards each other . . . Let us, fourthly, endeavor to help each other on in whatever we are agreed leads to the Kingdom. So far as we can, let us always rejoice to strengthen each other's hands in God.”

“White man, him speak with fork'd tongue...” --jasd's ancestor

Further: need I remind the reason Puritans, Quakers, et al – fled Europe for the Americas? Read: p-e-r-s-e-c-u-t-I-o-n. Yep, Protestant persecution.

So, what’s that thingee about a little leaven?

Reprising the following:

>>...and our protestant Fathers who were led of God<<

Given just the few Protestor’s history of persecution (even unto death) of the non-compliant – and accepting that they were “led of Gd” – well, pardon a cliché, but isn’t what flies for the one flies for the other?

[Lysimachus]

The important issue to remember JASD, is that the errors of the Protestant Reformers were all varying with one another.

The important thing to remember is that the Protestant Reformers laid the foundation for identifying the true Antichrist. On this point, ALL were unanimous.

When it comes to unanimity on prophetic conviction--without influencing one another, it is a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.

The same it is with the Early Church Fathers who were unanimous that the restraining power was the Pagan Roman Empire. While they differed in other more minor errors, unanimity on the Roman Empire restraining back the Man of Sin from surfacing it's ugly head speaks volumes.

So your arguments on the differing, more minor and inconsistent views of the Protestants is of little consequence to the "BIG PICTURE".

The Protestant Reformers were direct witnesses and recipients to the atrocities and persecutions committed toward them by the great Antichrist.

To reject this solid foundation is to reject the Witnesses that God has placed in history at such a time as that.

[John317]

[Lysimachus]

So I would propose, JASD, that your straw-picking on such minor issues is only hurting the cause of God, and causing you to miss the "BIG PICTURE" of the real controversies at steak.

[John317]

The important thing to remember is that the Protestant Reformers laid the foundation for identifying the true Antichrist. On this point, ALL were unanimous.

When it comes to unanimity on prophetic conviction--without influencing one another, it is a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.

The same it is with the Early Church Fathers who were unanimous that the restraining power was the Pagan Roman Empire. While they differed in other more minor errors, unanimity on the Roman Empire restraining back the Man of Sin from surfacing it's ugly head speaks volumes.

Great and important points to keep in mind, for sure.

Your last point is interesting. It explains why Paul would not have written plainly about the Roman Empire being the Restraining power. To do so could have called down the wrath of the Romans, who already had reason to dislike Paul. Paul's teaching on this point meant that Rome would soon collapse and that Christians would be glad of it because it would be a sign that Christ would come and destroy all human governments.

No wonder Paul spoke these things but did not send them by letter in the Roman Empire. Such talk could have been interpreted as inciting rebellion against Caesar.

[Lysimachus]

Great and important points to keep in mind, for sure.

Your last point is interesting. It explains why Paul would not have written plainly about the Roman Empire being the Restraining power. To do so could have called down the wrath of the Romans, who already had reason to dislike Paul. Paul's teaching on this point meant that Rome would soon collapse and that Christians would be glad of it because it would be a sign that Christ would come and destroy all human governments.

No wonder Paul spoke these things but did not send them by letter in the Roman Empire. Such talk could have been interpreted as inciting rebellion against Caesar.

Superb points! *BIG THUMBS UP*

Which reminds me, I might as well provide the link that the quotes from the different Church Fathers on the identity of the Restraining Power of 2 Thess 2:

Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist

[John317]

The Pope is a joke .... a little man in a white dress wearing a funny hat today

Not this one [2Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 9:11; 11:7; 13:1-4; 17:8-14]

.... not even close

Anyone who thinks the papal system or the papacy is a joke has their head in the sand. Have you not read the history of the Christian Church? The system has been around continuously for over 1500 years, and today there are over one billion people who follow him. Most newspapers have something about the pope on the first few pages almost every day. He has a great influence on governments of the world, and the last Pope was largely instrumental in the collapse of one of the largest and most powerful nations of history, the USSR. Without question, the papal system has been one of the most influential powers in the Western world over the last 1500 years, particularly in view of the fact that he himself has no military.

[John317]

.... the quotes from the different Church Fathers on the identity of the Restraining Power of 2 Thess 2:

Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist

Terrific. Those are pretty amazing, and they do show, as you said, a consistency among early Christian leaders on that question.

I wonder why most Christian leaders today, at least those you see on TV, don't say anything about what those men taught on this subject.

Could it be that they don't want to offend anyone? Could it be that they don't want to be called "anti-Catholic" or "anti-pope"? And is that more important than telling the truth?

[John317]

Yes, JASD, you are right that the protestant Reformers were very imperfect, and they taught some false doctrines. No doubt about that. They had recently come out of great darkness and were heading into the light. But the important point is that they uplifted Christ as the way of salvation, and they uplifted the Bible as the sole standard of doctrine and faith. That's pretty good considering where they came from-- a church that was largely based on tradition and on the the pronouncements of popes and councils. Clearly the Lord was leading those men, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, to say nothing of Wycliff, Huss, and Zwingli.

[Lysimachus]

Had it not been for the Reformers' conviction that the Antichrist/Beast Power/Little Horn/Harlot Woman/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition was realized in the Papal System, there would have never been a reformation.

And we'd still be in the dark ages.

It was because of this conviction (about the Papacy being the Antichrist) that we enjoy the freedoms we do today.

[jasd]

>>The important issue to remember JASD, is that the errors of the Protestant Reformers were all varying with one another.<<

Don’t exactly know what you mean – unless you’re saying that they only persecuted one another... You may want to revisit what I posted re John Know. And bear in mind that I proffered as examples – only a few of the outstanding facts of history re the early ‘fathers’ of Protestantism.

>>The important thing to remember is that the Protestant Reformers laid the foundation for identifying the true Antichrist. On this point, ALL were unanimous.<<

You’re saying that they could unanimously be wrong upon the issue of Sunday observance – but are unanimously right about the identity of the antichrist?

I recall St John writing that before Catholicism and before the Papacy – antichrists, even then, went out from them; that is those of Judea.

>>When it comes to unanimity on prophetic conviction--without influencing one another, it is a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.<<

I believe that you introduced a caveat – “without influencing one another” – which. of course, we know that they did, in fact – influence one another.

>>The same it is with the Early Church Fathers who were unanimous that the restraining power was the Pagan Roman Empire. While they differed in other more minor errors, unanimity on the Roman Empire restraining back the Man of Sin from surfacing it's ugly head speaks volumes.<<

Well, you’ve got me on that point, as I know nothing of the kind; that is, that the “Early Church Fathers” were unanimous in their agreement that the Roman Empire forestalled the appearance of the “Man of Sin”.

>>So your arguments on the differing, more minor and inconsistent views of the Protestants is of little consequence to the "BIG PICTURE".<<

Not aware of how the parameters of your “BIG PICTURE” are defined.

The early Protestors differed not in kind but in degree from those they were rebuking – and why should they not differ in degree, as their numbers can only be described at that time as minor. (I’m not making a case that the RCC church was not deserving of rebuke – just that we ought not lose sight by hypocrisy, whose legitimacy is always questionable)

>>The Protestant Reformers were direct witnesses and recipients to the atrocities and persecutions committed toward them by the great Antichrist.<<

Indeed, and they emulated those same atrocities and persecutions.

“Antichrist”. The "Reformers" also believed in Sunday worship.

>>To reject this solid foundation is to reject the Witnesses that God has placed in history at such a time as that.<<

I support Protestantism; however, I recognize breathlessness, as well. There are none so righteous as those who believe that their cause is just...

>>So I would propose, JASD, that your straw-picking on such minor issues is only hurting the cause of God, and causing you to miss the "BIG PICTURE" of the real controversies at steak.<<

Okay, let me get this straight: it is reprehensible when done by the RCC, but done by Protestors – Ho-hum...

Anyway, let’s not reprise EGW’s tactics defending her Testimonies...

I purport that inasmuch as Writ attests that ‘antichrist’ is plural by nature – there will be many emerging from the Protestors – even Sabbatarians.

>>at steak.<<

Make mine a two-pound Porterhouse - burnt, bloody rare.

Kidding... Subliminal, yes?

[jasd]

>>Your last point is interesting. It explains why Paul would not have written plainly about the Roman Empire being the Restraining power. To do so could have called down the wrath of the Romans,<<

Were I St Paul, and forgetting that I was going to die anyway... thinking that this point was of sufficient importance that the saints ought to know it - I would have, at least,

left an epistle to that effect to be opened only upon my demise - and signed in big righteous letters.

[Lysimachus]

They were not in unity about Sunday either JASD. I could list dozens of Protestants who believed in the Sabbath. Luther even argued back and forth with another famous Protestant about the Sabbath issue.

You're still missing my point it seems in your reply. Still missing the big picture. Still missing the real controversy that is going on between good and evil.

[Lysimachus]

When Protestants killed each other, it was usually political wars, not religious wars.

When the Papacy persecuted, it was based usually on religious grounds.

When the Protestants persecuted the Catholics, it was repercussion the Catholics caused.

If you keep hitting a dog hard enough, don't expect him not to bite back.

[jasd]

>>the collapse of one of the largest and most powerful nations of history, the USSR.<<

Ahh, whose capitol sits upon 'those' seven hills - wounded as though unto death - yet, even now arising, as a bear from its slumber.

(contrastingly, Rome sits upon six hills - and the Vatican sits upon one lonely hill the other side of the river)

[jasd]

>>If you keep hitting a dog hard enough, don't expect him not to bite back.<<

Indeed, in kind - as it were.

[Lysimachus]

JASD, is there any way you can post by putting the quotes around?

Like this:

Quote:

JASD, I am now quoting you

Like this:

[ quote ] put text here [ / quote ]

(remove the spaces of course)

That way we'll know who your quoting, and it will be more organized. Try to be more organized about your posts, and I ask that you strive to make them more professional. I have a hard time reading your stuff. It's hard on the eyes.

[jasd]

>>Early Church Fathers on the Timing of the Rise of Antichrist<<

Aiieee! St John, are you sure antichrists went out from among you? You didn't know that the Romans were restraining them?

[jasd]

>>That way we'll know who your quoting, and it will be more organized. Try to be more organized about your posts, and I ask that you strive to make them more professional. I have a hard time reading your stuff. It's hard on the eyes.<<

I use the arrows as they were first used; that is, until things became a bit more highfalutin.

You should have apprehended by now that I am highly individualistic and highly orthodox.

Should you wish to know to whom my responses are directed - it's right up on top of my post - next to the title of the thread.

Anyway, I'll use

Quote:

quote boxes

soon enough. Old dogs take their sweet time...

Lastly, "professional" is reflected in the content, which I unselfishly share with all the little grasshoppers

[Lysimachus]

>>That way we'll know who your quoting, and it will be more organized. Try to be more organized about your posts, and I ask that you strive to make them more professional. I have a hard time reading your stuff. It's hard on the eyes.<<

I use the arrows as they were first used; that is, until things became a bit more highfalutin.

You should have apprehended by now that I am highly individualistic and highly orthodox.

Should you wish to know to whom my responses are directed - it's right up on top of my post - next to the title of the thread.

Anyway, I'll use

Quote:

quote boxes

soon enough. Old dogs take their sweet time...

Lastly, "professional" is reflected in the content, which I unselfishly share with all the little grasshoppers