Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Were they right?

The second thing to note from the 2 Thess passage is the fact that Paul tells us that this entity will be destroyed at the second coming. (2 Thess. 2:8) So whatever it is, comes to power immediately after pagan Rome falls, and endures right up to the time of the second coming!!!
With this thought in mind, I will now turn to Daniel. The prophecies of Daniel are incredibly revealing. They are intricately detailed, providing specific information and points of character and events regarding the history of nations, beginning from Daniels time and unfolding throughout history and progressing throughouit all generations right down to the close of time and the second coming. And the Antichrist is a prominent feature throughout. This is not an accident. God desires that we are thoroughly informed of the nature and character of the Antichrist. Let us take heed. I will begin with Daniel 2.

All of Daniels visions are built on the one previous. Each one is a magnification, or an enlargement of the one before. The vision of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniels explanation regarding the statue forms the foundation for all the subsequent visions. Once we establish the foundation, we must take care that our understanding of later visions are built on that foundation. Our conclusions and interpretations must not deviate nor contradict or we shall soon lose our way, and our understanding become darkened.

Daniel 2:31 ¶ Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

We have here a statue made of 5 different components. Gold, silver, bronze, iron, and a mixture of iron and clay. This statue was then completely destroyed by a rock 'made without hands', which became a mountain which filled the whole earth.No trace was found of the former materials. Nebuchadnezzar was so convicted by the Holy Spirit, he demanded his wise men (soothsayers and occultists for the most part) to give him the interpretation.Perhaps knowing their duplicity, he demanded they give him the dream also; whether Nebuchadnezzar had indeed forgotten the dream, or was testing them, I don't know.Daniel was finally given the opportunity to give the interpretation.

36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain.

Four empires, beginning with the current administration, Babylon, who will dominate earth's history. Each one closely followed by the next, the final one being changed and weakened although it lasts right up to the end. Note that there are no gaps, no times between in which there is no empire ruling. Throughout history it is possible to see the influences and lasting impressions that have been brought to even the present generation by these empires.History has thus far without equivocation confirmed the veracity of this vision.
Babylon is the only
kingdom at that stage named, "thou art this head of gold".
One very important thing we must take note of. When the rock destroys the statue," it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold
". All the components are still there at the end!!! Even though the empires are long gone, there remains at the end a vestige, a remnant, a trace of the original within the final entity that is destroyed.
This is important, and I will discuss this important point a little later.
 
Every reformer, from the 12th to the 18th century, from Wycliffe to Luther, from Calvin to Cranmer, and dozens in between, pointed their collective fingers at Rome and proclaimed the Roman papacy as the Antichrist of prophetic scripture. Were they right? Judging by today's views, the reformation was a major mistake, and the reformers all religious radicals deceived and influenced by the times in which they lived. If they were right, then why do so few proclaim it today? If however they were wrong, then why don't we all forsake the title "protestant" (who's protesting today anyway?) and return to Rome?

I'll just stick to the Gospel , thanks!

That Jesus died for our sins and that he was resurrected which gives us life eternal!
 
I'll just stick to the Gospel , thanks!

That Jesus died for our sins and that he was resurrected which gives us life eternal!
I would like to point out that proclaiming the truth about the church's most deceptive enemy and exposing her lies, her sins, and her false doctrines is an essential part of the gospel.

Revelation 14:6 ¶ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:......

(this is clearly present truth teaching for the final generations just as the apostles teachings were present truth for their generation see 2 Peter 1:12)
.....and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication......
(Part of the gospel for the last days is to proclaim the apostasy of Babylon)
.....9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation;
....
(surely you aren't suggesting that we cease to warn others of the impending crisis?)
.... and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.....
(All the above form the full gospel for the last days. You neglect teaching and proclaiming any one part, you are nor preaching the gospel.)

....12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(The above is a description of the church, the remnant against whom the dragon is waging war, see Revel. 12:17, that proclaims this message in direct contradistinction to the vast majority who receive the mark....which do you belong to?)

Finally, we are to plead for those who are locked into this system,to
Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

God has a people in Babylon. They are not predestined to destruction and judgement, but have the opportunity to repent and take a hold of the truth. It is our calling, nay our duty, to expose untruth and warn people to flee error.

 
Last edited:
v 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom...

God in His Sovereign wisdom allowed Babylon to exist.

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Rom 13:1.



...power, and strength, and glory.



v 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

Nebuchadnezzar the king of BABYLON personified his kingdom.

The golden head represented not just Nebuchadnezzar but his kingdom, for after it there would arise “another kingdom” (v 39). Daniel uses “king” as a synonym for “kingdom” as he does elsewwhere in his book. Compare with Dan 8:20.



Babylon was called the “golden city” (Isa 14:4; Jer 51:7) and boasted the wondeful hanging gardens, built by Nebuchadnezzar for his favourite wife who loved the tree- covered hills of her home country, Media.

A century and a half later the Greek poet Aeschylus (who died 456B.C.) similarly wrote of Babylon as “teeming with gold.” Heredotus (who died 424B.C.) was amazed at the lavishness of the gold within the sanctuary of Bel-Marduk.

See Loeb Classical Library, Aeschylus, Vol. 1, p115; Loeb Classical Library, Herodotus, Vol. 1, p227, 229. Also Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, p25.



A great religious centre, Babylon was the centre of world idolatry. Under Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon became the superpower of its day. Fortified by massive walls and watered by the river Euphrates which flowed under its walls and through the city, it was thought to be impregnable.



v 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom...

History and Scripture show that in 539-8 BC the combined kingdom of “the MEDES and the PERSIANS” (Dan 5:28-31), led by Cyrus, conquered Babylon. They diverted the river Euphrates, upon which Babylon sat, (i.e. was built over) and they went up the river bed, under the river gates, and took the city by surprise to fulfil the prophecy: “The word that the Lord spake against Babylon...A drought is upon her waters; they shall be dried up.” Jer 50:1, 38. See also Jer 51:11, 28; 2 Chron 36:20.



“[Babylon had] stored provisions enough for very many years; so they cared nothing for the siege; and Cyrus knew not what to do...whether, then someone advised him in his difficulty, or he perceived himself what to do, I know not, but this is what he did...drawing off the river by canal...he made the stream to sink till its former channel could be forded. When this happened the Persians who were posted with this intent made their way into Babylon by the channel of the Euphrates...and brought them to a miserable end.” Herodotus, Book 1, sec 191; A.D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library, p239.



...inferior to thee...

Medo-Persia was “inferior” to Babylon not in size, as Medo-Persia was more vast than the Babylonian Empire, but in moral worth.

Daniel probably did not know who this succeeding kingdom was until he read the handwriting on the wall years after Nebuchadnezzar’s death. See Dan 5:28.

The historian Herodotus says Persia received tribute from subject states, paid mostly in silver talents.



...and another third kingdom of brass [or bronze], which shall bear rule over all the earth.

About 200 years later, at the battle of Arbela in 331 BC, GRECIA, (the semi-Greek Macedonian empire) led by Alexander the Great, ended the Persian reign and began to “bear rule over all the earth” that is, it conquered everything it attempted to.”

It is interesting to note that the Greek soldiers were known for their bronze armour. Herodotus tells that Psammtichus I of Egypt, an older contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar’s father, saw in the invading Greek pirates the fulfillment of an oracle that foretold “men of bronze coming from the sea.” Herodotus, i, 152, 154.

Nebuchadnezzar was probably already aware of the Greeks “another king from the west, clad in bronze,” as Josephus puts it.

See Josephus, Antiquities, book 10, chap. 10, sec. 4, in Loeb Classical Library, Josephus, vol. 6, p273, and note i.

Javan’s “vessels of brass” (Eze 27:13) takes on new significance when one learns that Javan is seen to refer to the Ionian Greeks.

In Dan 8:5-7, 20-21 the angel Gabriel clearly foretold that “Grecia” would conquer “Media and Persia.”



v 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron...

Like the other metallic sections, the iron represents a singular “kingdom.” The iron of the legs represents ROME, from its coming to power until its break-up into the nations of Europe.



...forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

Following Greece, Rome rose to worldwide power, as is shown by the fact that Cæsar Augustus could issue a decree “that all the world should be taxed” (Luke 2:1).



“...the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations or their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome.” Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, chap. 73, par 43.



Polybius, a Roman historian, wrote:

“...the Romans have subjected to their rule not portions, but nearly the whole of the world (and possess an empire which is not only immeasurably greater than any which preceded it, but need not fear rivalry in the future.)” Polybius the Histories, translated by W. R. Patton, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 1, p7.



No single rival conquered Rome, but Rome fell apart.



The four metals thus represent, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome.

Any decent History book will confirm the sequence. Stewart C. Easton’s college textbook, The Heritage of the Ancient World, lists on its table of contents, “The Chaldeans and the New Babylonia,” “The Great Persian Empire,” “The Greek Civilization,” and “The foundations of the Roman Empire.”



v 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided...

TEN divisions - THE NATIONS OF EUROPE WHICH AROSE FROM THE ROMAN EMPIRE

The Roman Empire was broken up in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. among Barbarian invaders from Northern & Eastern Europe.



The toes of the image suggest that the fourth kingdom, Rome, would be divided into ten, but the interpretation in Daniel 2 makes no mention of their number. We find the number of divisions in Daniel 7 where the same series of four great kingdoms is described again, under the symbols of “four great beasts.” From the fourth beast come ten horns, declared to be “ten kings [kingdoms].” These ten kingdoms correspond with the feet and toes of iron and clay into which the image’s legs divided.

The Roman Empire was weakened by wealth, luxury, and excess, and she could not withstand the onslaught of the rude barbarian tribes from the north and east of Europe. By 476AD 10 kingdoms had been established. Those which survived make up the nations of Europe today, and are still distinctly divided. Some have been notably strong, others weak. The prominent barbarian tribes which became the kingdoms of Europe are:



1. Alemani- Germans

2. Franks - French

3. Burgundians - Swiss

4. Suevi - Portugese

5. Vandals - Extinct

6. Visigoths- Spanish

7. Saxons - English

8. Ostrogoths - Extinct

9. Lombards- Italy

10. Heruli - Extinct.




...but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

The iron was Rome and the Roman influence continued into the feet and toes in the form of Roman Catholicism.

v 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

Some European kingdoms are strong, some weak.



v 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry [from a word meaning “damp “or “sticky”] clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men...



The four metals had represented earthly governments - State powers. The clay represents a new distinct element - the religious or Church power.



UNION OF CHURCH & STATE

Evidently “they” who mingle with the seed of men are not the seed of men. They must therefore be the “seed,” or children, of God. Here then is foretold the mingling, or attempted union, of the church with the world. Such a union is as unnatural as attempting to mix iron & clay, and is destined for dissolution.




Ezra 9:2 “... the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”







...but they shall not cleave one to another.

Royal and common marriages among the nations of Europe have also failed to bring about unity.

A partial unity was brought about by the uniting of the Roman Catholic Church (the papacy) and some of the European nations during the Dark Ages, but this Religious-Political system - The Holy Roman Empire - did not last. With the advent of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, protesting the errors & abuses of misdirected Catholicism, Europe began to withdraw their support from the Vatican. In France, papal hypocrisy and abuses led to a rejection of all religion, giving rise to the Atheism of the French Revolution.



“All the reigning princes in Europe are closely related.” The Royal Relatives of Europe, World’s Work, Oct. 1914



...even as iron is not mixed with clay.

The Roman Empire has been described as history’s Humpty Dumpty. After Rome’s downfall in 476 AD “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men (the warriors and statesmen of fifteen centuries have failed) “couldn’t put Humpty together again.”

Six notable rulers who have tried in vain to defy the prophecy & reunite Europe were:



1. Charlemagne (of the Franks) 8th century

2. Charles V (of Spain) 16th century

3. Louis XIV (of France) 18th century

4. Napoleon (of France) 19th century

5. Kaiser Wilhelm (Germany) 20th century

6. Adolf Hitler (Germany) 20th century



The image of chapter 2 exactly parallels the vision of the four beasts in chapter 7. The fourth beast of chapter 7 represents the same kingdom as the iron legs of chapter 2. The ten horns of the beast correspond to the divided feet and toes of the image. These horns are said to be ten kings which should arise; and they are just as much independent kingdoms as are the beasts themselves, for the beasts are spoken of in precisely the same manner; namely, as “four kings which shall arise.” Dan 7:17. The ten horns do not denote a line of successive kings, but kingdoms which exist contemporaneously; for three of them were plucked up by the little horn. The ten horns represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided, and these horns correspond to the divided feet and toes of Dan 2.



v 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed...

Daniel uses the words “king” and “kingdom” interchangeably.

CHRIST’S KINGDOM SET UP

At the time this kingdom is set up, there will be a plurality of kings existing contemporaneously. These kingdoms cannot refer to the four preceding kingdoms; for it would be absurd to use such language in reference to a line of successive kings, since it would be in the days of the last king only, not in the days of any of the preceding, that the kingdom of God would be set up.

The Kingdom of God was set up after the stone hit the image on the feet. The stone cannot refer to Christ’s first advent, because when Christ came Rome was one united superpower, whereas the stone hit the image upon the feet AFTER Rome had divided into the feet and toes of iron and clay (the 10 nations of Europe AD476.

Christ is the stone which will pulverize the image. Speaking of Himself, Christ said, “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Matt 21:44



The reigns of the various kingdoms get longer and longer:

Babylon605 - 539

Medo-Persia539 - 331

Greece331 - 169

Rome (pagan & papal)169 - the Second Coming

Christ’s Kingdom Second Coming to eternity!



...and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms...

At Christ’s coming the nations are not to be converted, but destroyed (Rev 19:11-21). Those “filthy” when Jesus comes are forever lost. (Rev 22:11-12)



...and it shall stand for ever.



v 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone [compare with Matt 21:44] was cut out of the mountain without hands...

“Without hands” means by Divine power. See Heb 9:11, 24; 2 Cor 5:1; Col 2:11.

Christ’s kingdom is not to be brought in by human devising. Thus all efforts to establish Christ’s kingdom by political or military means are misdirected.

Mountains represent kingdoms (see Dan 2:35). The stone is Christ. The mountain from which he was cut is the great universal kingdom of God.



...and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold...

God sees past kingdoms as still present:

(1) Though the earlier nations represented by the metallic sections had their dominions taken away, yet in a certain sense they live on and will be fully destroyed when the stone strikes.

(2) The end-time beast of Rev 13 is made up of the previous beasts (nations) of Dan 7. This shows that though the previous nations lost their dominion, yet in a sense they still exist, amalgamated in the beast.

(3) Of the first three beasts in Dan 7 we read, “they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” Dan 7:12. The fourth beast itself exists till its destruction after the judgment.

God clearly sees all previous powers as still living even though their dominions have been taken away. Thus their complete destruction is to occur at the brightness of Christ’s Second Coming. (2 Thess 2:8)



...the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

The fact that Daniel could tell the king his dream, confirmed to the king that the interpretation was also correct.


Thus far, the reformers, in their study of prophecy, had good reason to believe the RCC was the Antichrist, however, when prophecy is being used as in this case to identify someone or thing, it must meet the requirements or criteria of every single aspect of the prophecy. So far the RCC fits the bill of 2 Thess. and Daniel 2. Will it continue to pass the test? Daniel 7 next.
 
Just to clarify something for Jiggy....by reformation I do not mean that I believe the RCC can be reformed. The papal system is totally beyond any kind of reformation, it's destiny is ultimately to be destroyed. By reformation I refer to individual Christians throughout all faith lines....God has people even in the RCC, that is why He says "come out of her My people". They are true Christians, living up to what light they have, but they are Christians not because of Catholic teachings, tradition, history or reputation, but despite all of those things.

Now, some quotes from some individual reformers.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): "Luther ... proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John,by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy ... And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror seized their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome." Taken from J. H. Merle D'Aubigne's History of the
Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.

John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

(I may write a little on this myself later)

John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which
the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded
that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks."
The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist,
and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers,
and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1,
pp. 6-7.

John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, "He is in an
emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too,
properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his
opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong
to God alone." Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.

Sorry for the delay. What you have posted here with the exception of Crammer's statement are someone's commentary of what they wrote.

Now if they wrote of the pope being the anti-christ which pope would that be? Wouldn't it have been the pope living during their life? If so they were obviously wrong, were they not?
 
I would like to point out that proclaiming the truth about the church's most deceptive enemy and exposing her lies, her sins, and her false doctrines is an essential part of the gospel.



The gospel is good news and there is a difference between proclaiming the gospel and defending the gospel. They are not one and the same. A good example of this is found in Paul's letter to the believers at Galatia.

I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. [fn] You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ. Gal. 1:6&7
 
Brakelite, as a reformist do you believe that Jesus is the builder of His church (ekklesia)?
 
Sorry for the delay. What you have posted here with the exception of Crammer's statement are someone's commentary of what they wrote.
I think you need to read them again. Luther's is the only commentary.
Now if they wrote of the pope being the anti-christ which pope would that be? Wouldn't it have been the pope living during their life? If so they were obviously wrong, were they not?
No, because what they were condemning was the system, which had a man at the head of it. The system is Antichrist; in Daniel 7 the little horn is a power, not an individual. The power continues despite having many different leaders. When denouncing the pope personally, they are denouncing the system which he represents.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to read them again. Luther's is the only commentary.

No, because what they were condemning was the system, which had a man at the head of it. The system is Antichrist; in Daniel 7 the little horn is a power, not an individual. The power continues despite having many different leaders. When denouncing the pope personally, they are denouncing the system which he represents.

Maybe you should re read them, seems to me they were speaking directly of the pope not a system.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist,
and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers,
and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1,
pp. 6-7.
 
Last edited:
Yes, however God has been gracious to include us in His work. We are co-labourers together with Him.

So does Jesus do a work that is less than perfect?
If Jesus is indeed building the "church" why the need for reform?
 
So does Jesus do a work that is less than perfect?
If Jesus is indeed building the "church" why the need for reform?
Because His church is made up of imperfect people. That is why Jesus found it necessary to chasten His church in the letters to the churches in Revelation 1 and 2.

Some churches will refuse to accept His chastening.They are the daughters of the mother of harlots who return to her in forming Babylon the Great.

Jesus is the true vine. Despite that some of the branches do not bear fruit and are removed and taken away to be burnt.
 
Because His church is made up of imperfect people. That is why Jesus found it necessary to chasten His church in the letters to the churches in Revelation 1 and 2.

Some churches will refuse to accept His chastening.They are the daughters of the mother of harlots who return to her in forming Babylon the Great.

Jesus is the true vine. Despite that some of the branches do not bear fruit and are removed and taken away to be burnt.

Your speaking of general maintenance, reform would be needed because of negligence.
 
Your speaking of general maintenance, reform would be needed because of negligence.
May I assume that you would have agreed to the need for reformation in the papal church, particularly that which was corrupt prior to the 16th century? Being unwilling to reform, God began a new work called 'protestantism', agreed? Unfortunately, the protestants brought with them a lot of baggage; the papacy had trampled upon truth to the extent it was buried in a quagmire of lies and tradition. The reformers didn't all of a sudden discover those truths and become the 'perfect' church you speak of. They had need of reform, for the very reason you espouse above...centuries of neglect.

The big question is....has the reformation finished? I answer no, for the simple reason that the protestant churches, and most of the independents that grew from them, still hold to many of the traditions and practices that so permeated Rome.
 
Maybe you should re read them, seems to me they were speaking directly of the pope not a system.
There is a precedent for such a thing in the very prophecy we have been using as the basis for this topic,

Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

Daniel is calling Nebuchadnezzar the head of gold, and so he was. Yet we all are aware that the head of gold does not apply to the king alone, it cannot, for the statue is a time-line that endures to the second coming. You and I know that there must be more than just one king involved,

So with the papacy, the little horn that grew out of the fourth empire, Rome. One system represented by many leaders. Saying "thou art this Antichrist" would be no different from Daniel saying "Thou art this head of gold".
 
May I assume that you would have agreed to the need for reformation in the papal church, particularly that which was corrupt prior to the 16th century? Being unwilling to reform, God began a new work called 'protestantism', agreed? Unfortunately, the protestants brought with them a lot of baggage; the papacy had trampled upon truth to the extent it was buried in a quagmire of lies and tradition. The reformers didn't all of a sudden discover those truths and become the 'perfect' church you speak of. They had need of reform, for the very reason you espouse above...centuries of neglect.

The big question is....has the reformation finished? I answer no, for the simple reason that the protestant churches, and most of the independents that grew from them, still hold to many of the traditions and practices that so permeated Rome.

Really, I don't think it matters one way or the other when we're talking about the religious system because it is not the ekklesia that Jesus is building. It is a carnal system and will always be corrupt. Many are confused about it's entity because many of the body of Christ are participants. One of the proofs is the fact that it is always in need of "reform", unlike the ekklesia that Jesus is building.
The current state of many within the body of Christ here in the earth, is not indicative of a deformity but rather a lack of spiritual growth which is hindered by the very system many are dependent on.
To mature properly and fully one must get free from the hindrances of the religious system and submit to the inner workings of HolySpirit. While religion maybe somewhat successful at conforming the outside it cannot transform the inside, tis something that is only accomplished by HolySpirit.

The early "reformists" as they are called, did come out from under the Catholic church and papacy, they did not abandon some of the practices, ie; the clergy/laity system, temple attendance, sabbath keeping on Sunday, and many of the other rituals passed down from Judaism just as you have mentioned. But if there is not sufficient inward transformation and spiritual growth the outward conformity is religious hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Really, I don't think it matters one way or the other when we're talking about the religious system because it is not the ekklesia that Jesus is building. It is a carnal system and will always be corrupt. Many are confused about it's entity because many of the body of Christ are participants. One of the proofs is the fact that it is always in need of "reform", unlike the ekklesia that Jesus is building.
The current state of many within the body of Christ here in the earth, is not indicative of a deformity but rather a lack of spiritual growth which is hindered by the very system many are dependent on.
To mature properly and fully one must get free from the hindrances of the religious system and submit to the inner workings of HolySpirit. While religion maybe somewhat successful at conforming the outside it cannot transform the inside, tis something that is only accomplished by HolySpirit.

The early "reformists" as they are called, did come out from under the Catholic church and papacy, they did not abandon some of the prractices, ie; the clergy/laity system, temple attendance, sabbath keeping on Sunday, and many of the other rituals passed down from Judaism just as you have mentioned. But if there is not sufficient inward transformation and spiritual growth the outward conformity is religious hypocrisy.

There is nothing which I could disagree with here. Any reformation must begin insi8de, and the inevitable result of persoanl consecration is a fruitful church.

If the Bereans had submitted to the organised church at the time they would have thrown Paul out onto the street like the Thessalonians had before them. That said, I belong to a specific denomination, who I believe teach doctrine, and practice Christianity closer to the NT model than any other. I would add however that if anyone can show me that in principle or teaching they have deviated from that model, I would be the first to protest, and if unheeded, leave. At the moment, when I compare my church's teachings with the scripture, I see no cause to abandon them.

Individual churches within the denomination however...well, that's another story. There are some I would refuse to attend, or be a member of. And the main reason for that is that many have conformed to 'popular' Christianity in their worship style, and their services have degenerated into an entertainment exercise that brings glory to man, but not to the God Who is meant to be the object of worship.
 
More evidence needed?

For Jiggy's benefit, as it appears he is yet to be convinced, I would like to add a few more quotes from our Christian forbears who agreed that the papacy is the Antichrist, the 'man of sin'. Before I do so however I feel it is important for me to make something as clear as I can. It is not to engender hatred or animosity toward individual Catholics, nor even against the church they hold dear. I am convinced that in all churches there are genuine sincere Christians who love Jesus and are living up to what light they have regarding religious faith.
It is important however that they understand the true nature of the papal system. God calls them, His children, to come out of her (Revel. 18) for the papal or Antichrist system is devoted to destruction, and it is not in God's will that there should be any who have placed their faith in Him to remain a part of the counterfeit which places itself in place of Him in the minds and hearts of the world.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> Eberhard II von Truchsees, Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg in 1241 at the Council of Regensburg denounced Pope Gregory IX as "that man of perdition, whom they call Antichrist, who in his extravagant boasting says, I am God, I cannot err.”

1350 John Milicz is ordained a priest in Bohemia
1367 Milicz of Prague travels to Rome and appeals for reformation.He posts a sign in the city proclaiming the Coming of the Antichrist – he is arrested and imprisoned. Released after 12 months, he begins preaching in Prague in 1369, and 3 years later in 1372 is excommunicated by Pope Gregory X1.
A short time later Milicz goes to be ‘examined’ in Avignon. On May 21 preaches to the assembled cardinals there and then dies before judgment on him is made.


Philip Malencthon It is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very antichrist. . . . Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul clearly says the man of sin will rule in the church by exalting himself above the worship of God.

Isaac Newton "But it [the Papacy] was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms [referred to in Daniel 7:7, 8]. . . . And such a seer, prophet, and king is the Church of Rome [referring to the little horn of Daniel 7]. (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations on the Prophecies, p. 75)

Cotton Mather (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The Fall of Babylon" by Cotton Mather

Roger Williams (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as quote:"the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

Samuel Lee (A seventeenth Rhode Is minister.) "It is agreed among all main lines of the English Church that the Roman pontiff is the antichrist." (Samuel Lee, The Cutting Off of Antichrist, p. 1)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top