You are confusing this. Obviously, kings reign over kingdoms. But the identification of a king with his kingdom does not at all mean that the kingdom has no king! ;)
C'mon, bro, you can't deny that "kings" and "kingdoms" are synonymous when the angel said this:
"...these great
beasts, which are four, are four
kings..."
"...the fourth
beast shall be the fourth
kingdom"."
The Ten Horns called "kings" are Ten "Kingdoms" - Anglo Saxons, Francs, Allemenni, Visogoths, Suevi, Lombards, Burgundians...history shows the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths were uprooted by the papacy just as the prophecy foretold.
In fact, "man of God" refers to a single man, and not a "plurality of men." Did you think that by saying this you've proven your point, that a single man means "many men?"
Let's be clear: when Paul says "that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" a blind man can see he's not talking about one single Christian, but ALL Christian men.
So, yes, just as the "man of God" refers to a plurality of men, so "man of sin" also refers to the line of successive popes at the head of the papal system century after century.
I don't need to brush up on history I haven't misrepresented! I never said the Papacy never oppressed people before the Protestant Reformation. Obviously, the Reformation was a particularly rough time for the Papacy.
Spurgeon said "
...and as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise the question". He knew anyone fully acquainted with church history would have to be insane to not see that the papacy is the Antichrist.
Since you're obviously not insane, the only explanation for why you can't see that is you're not fully acquainted with church history. Please watch the link lest you be found denying evidence before giving it a chance to speak!
Citing Wesley's or anybody's opinion on who the False Prophet is does not prove their opinion or speculation is right.
Wesley never said the Apostate Protestantism was the False Prophet - what Wesley said was that the Second Beast would soon arise right after the fall of the papal First Beast which they fully expected to take place in 1798 - and what happened in 1798? Napoleon had the pope arrested and declared the papacy "dead".
At that same time, France became the first nation to officially recognize the United States as a sovereign nation independent of England.
But, that's all just a coincidence, right? ;)
Your judgmental position is noted. I think Protestants and others have adopted Futurism because the arguments are solid. And Futurism is not strictly associated with the Jesuits since belief in a future Antichrist has existed since the early Church--well before Jesuits arrived on the scene.
No, you all adopt Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism because of the "sensationalism"
We *don't* know the Papacy is the 1st Beast--that is only your opinion. I think the 1st Beast is a future revelation of something that emerges out of the 4th Beast of Dan 7 *after* the 10 kings of that tradition have emerged. They have not yet emerged in my opinion, and therefore the 1st Beast has not yet appeared. It cannot be the Papacy, in my view.
Following the prophetic timeline leads us straight to the papacy - Babylon, MP, Greece, Rome, Ten Horn Forerunners of Europe
and the Little Horn papacy rising up among those ten and uprooting three.
All other interpretations require gaps that aren't there and ignorance of what is there, like Isaiah 24:1-6 KJV.
Anybody who disagrees with you is "blind?" I don't think you're qualified to be spokesman for God!
Anyone who agrees with Jesuit Futurism or Jesuit Preterism is blind to the truth of history!
- Protestant Historicism uncovers the papacy as the Bible Antichrist
- Millions of catholics abandon it and join the Reformation
- Papacy convenes a record-setting council to figure out how to destroy the Reformation
- Jesuits Alcazar and Ribera fabricate Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism
- Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism point people looking for Antichrist to the past/future
- "Protestants" now defend Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism and denounce Protestant Historicism
Yes, I'd say they're pretty blind.
This is not to say that one who believes in "soul sleep" necessarily believes in the "annihilation of the soul." It is just saying that the soul follows the determined choices of the person's physical existence and associated choices such that no quality of the soul can bypass death apart from accepting Christ. People cannot buy someone else's Salvation!
You're talking out of both sides of the mouth. Either the soul is immortal or is not. Luther as well as others say it's not.
I should think that Luther believed in the damnation of the soul, as well as the immortality of saved souls? If so, he would be advocating for something similar to what we might think of as the immortality of the soul, since resurrected souls experience eternal judgment.
Luther believed the Bible when it says the soul is granted immortality - it is not innately immortal.
Many Protestants who have believed in Historicism with respect to biblical eschatology have now embraced Futurism.
Who? I've been to many revelation seminars and seen many people abandon what you teach and embrace Protestant Historicism...never the other way around.
True story: One preacher went into a city and set up a tent and began preaching Historicism. A well known local Futurist preacher found out about it and set up a tent next to it, sent his wife every night to listen to what the other preacher had to say so that he could preach against it the following night. Night after night, she went and listened and reported back. At the end of the seminar, she was baptized into the Historicist church.
And it was not by conversion to Jesuit beliefs. Futurism was, I believe, the original eschatology of the Church, if we are to believe that John spoke of a future Antichrist, along with Dan 7.
See, this is why I say you have no clue about what you're condemning, which is the height of irresponsibility.
You're like those who have no idea who the Beast is, yet are convinced they know all about the Mark of the Beast.
Certainly, some Church Fathers believed in a future Antichrist! Just because it is believed that Antichrist will at some point be rooted in an historical figure does not mean that is not a "Futurist" view!
When will you stop with these suppostions and click links, friend? I used to be a Jesuit Futurist and believed what it taught until my beliefs were challenged and I discovered I could not defend them against the truth...so, I had no choice but to accept it.
I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…
nicklasarthur.wordpress.com
Being a "matter of history" does not mean it is a proper interpretation of biblical prophecy!
Adopting the Futurist view that God had nothing to say to the church after Revelation 3 until the "rapture" doesn't prove anything either...but the degree of gullibility to which one must descend because that doesn't make sense!
God says, "Surely the Lord will do nothing unless He revealeth His secret to His servants the prophets" but you guys say, "No, Lord, you will NOT reveal it to us!"
The "end of time" is not a term I use with respect to eras, such as eras of reigns or eras of various covenants. Time does not "end" at the end of an era.
When the Bible speaks of the "present age" it indicates it comes to an end with a particular event. And that event is the Return of Christ, when the present Church is elevated to glorified status to rule over the mortal world as it continues on for another thousand years.
If we don't stick to the prophetic timeline in Daniel, we can make the Bible say anything we want, eschatologically speaking.
