A Divided Church?

Popes are nothing more than false teachers/leaders that are spoke about throughout scripture, false teachers and leaders that could be named in the (Thousands)

No these Popes throughout history dont fit the description below, who will be the (Future) Man Of Sin, whom the Lord will destroy with the brightness of his coming

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 Thessalonians 2:2-8KJV
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not 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.
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.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
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:

Exactly the same as you, it took place in 70AD in the destruction of Jerusalem

Actually, the popes do claim themselves to be the "High Priest", to be the "Holy Father" and "supreme Judge of the Faithful". Popes also claim to be infallible in his teaching when he sits in his chair in the temple (vatica). Therefore he claims to be a lawgiver.

The bible clearly states that there is only one teacher, one high priest, one Father, one judge and one lawgiver, which is God. The popes claim all of these. ALL.

Also there is something that is called "the chair of St. Peter" in the Vatican. The Popes actually have a seat in the temple. The seat is modeled after the Arc of the Covenant in that it is made of wood and overlaided in gold. It is carried with long poles by priests. They claim this temple (the vatican) to be the temple of God.

Claim is the key word.

To say the popes do not claim to be God is again to give cover to them. And you provide much cover for the popes which are the antichrist.

So lets move on because your eyes are close don this.

Where do you stand on confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith?

So then you call me preterist. And another will call me a historicist. In both cases people lodge these labels onto me to discredit me.
So what am I then, A historicist? A preterist? Both? If both then why is then a distinction between the two?

The truth is I am none of the above. All are flawed, man-made doctines which were created to box in and pigeon hole believers.

But I refuse to be boxed in or pigeon holed.

You can call me what you want. But you label me not for my sake, but for your sake. Just remember that.

Historicism is reformed theology that teaches the popes were the antichrist throughout history, appears you teach the same?

Historicism teaches Daniel's abomination as fulfilled along with the great trib in 70AD,it appears you believe the same?

1. If a person denies a Tribune God?

2. Denies Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh?

3. Denies a literal hell?

What religious sect or teaching would you believe they are following?

TRIBUNE
an official in ancient Rome chosen by the plebeians to protect their interests.

triune.....THE TRINITY.

Not only Daniel but all prophecy to the Jews has been fulfilled.

Revelation is mostly fulfilled....We wait for the 2nd coming of Christ....MARANATHA!!
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man


Reformed theology does not teach that the Pope is antichrist> ROLF
OR even that there is one big bad wolf called Antichrist.

you are giving me hysterics = that was taught by some early church fathers, some of whom were even premil.
which is why I don't use them for anything to fact check

OR that God is TRIBUNE...........ROLF

I just glanced at the confession,I dont see a big problem with it,I believe in predestination, I believe the Popes have maintained the (Spirit) of Antichrist, but not being the future antichrist, Roman Catholicism has been a persecutor of the Church, the inquisitions being one example, pure evil

I dont believe (Sunday) is the christian sabbath

Sorta odd,the confession stated that the 10 commandments are binding, and I agree, then they state the Christian Sabbath being (Sunday)?

Constantines Roman Law of Sunday observance 321 AD

I believe the 7th day Sabbath is binding today, I dont follow the Adventist, nor am I condemning concerning it, my personal observation of scripture.

Thanks for the response, look forward to more communication

Auto spell got me again, smiles

Its entaining....good way to start the day....with a full-on belly laugh

Your comments are interesting. Do your thoughts align with the wide gate being the denominations, and the straight gate being the visible church in Matt 7?

I do not believe this. I believe the antichrist began first with the succession of the Roman Emperors. the Antichrist was revealed when they destroyed the temple, stopped the sacrifices, and killed over a million Jews in Judea.
Then the antichrist position transitioned over to the Roman Pontiff. this transition period occurred between 313AD and 800 AD.

OK, I agree with this in general, BUT I disagree with many of their interpretations within this. So don't just lump me in with the historicists. The historicists have many things wrong. This is by design.

a triune God you mean? Yes, this is a red flag.

What 1 John 4 means is that they deny Christ was risen in the flesh on the 8th day. Not many deny that Jesus was in the flesh as a baby and walked the earth. 1 john 4 isn't referring to this. 1 John 4 is referring to the many who will deny that Jesus was risen in the flesh from the tomb on the 8th day (the day after the sabbath, the 7th day). The spirit of the antichrist denies this. So many false teachers and churches preach "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus..", but what they are really preaching is a dead Jesus in the tomb on the 7th day.


Yes, this is a red flag.


There are really only two choices:
1) those who follow the Holy Spirit, the very same spirit that rose Christ in the flesh from the tomb
2) those who follow the spirit of the antichrist, the spirit that denies Christ rose in the flesh from the tomb.[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
Can you think of any religious org that fits the description below?

1. If a person denies a Triune God?

2. Denies Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh?

3. Denies a literal hell?

The Jehovah's Witnesses

Here's the problem with your view of preterism:

You think that adherence to any view held by preterists makes someone a preterist.

That's garbage.

You hold to only the KJV. Does that make you a version-worshiping cultist? No. By the same logic, holding to a view that is also held by preterists does not make someone a preterist. A person can hold to one component without holding to all of them.

Toss your little boxes in the trash. Let others believe what they believe and stop putting labels on them. Defend your views, and when you ask others about theirs, do so with the respect you hope to receive from them.

You must have seen me banging my head on the desk after trying to tell Truth7t7 that very thing over and over and over and.......
WELL DONE

Correct......I would just add that vicar of Christ means 'In the place of Christ'
Could they be more arrogant? nope

Those who affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith (WC) affirm they belong to the same Church (with a capital C) as the Pope.
In WC Chapter XXV parts VI. They rebuke the Pope, but remain in the very same Church (with a capital C) as the Pope.

WC Chapter XXX I. and II. claims that Jesus took the “keys” [from the Pope] and handed them over to a government. What government? Scotland?
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WC) is not God inspired and therefore it is not to be trusted - at all. It was written by a parliamentary government with intent to gain an earthly victory during a time of civil war. There is no spiritual victory in this official document. Their earthly victory is Scotland I suppose, which is no victory at all.

The Presbyterians try to tell us that they do not hold the WC to the same authority as scripture. This is a lie they are selling us. The WC makes declarations and decrees on behalf of God. It either has full authority or it has no authority at all. There is no in between.

The WC is a legal binding contract, an eternal contract; a spiritual contract. You either agree to all the terms of the contract, or you reject all the terms of the contract. There is no in between. Anyone who tells you different is lying.

Rip up this false contract and free your mind.

Likewise, The Council of Nicea either has full authority or no authority at all. And it has no authority at all.
the WC infers that councils like the Council of Nicea has some authority These are lies. The WC contains many lies. All of these councils and confessions and creeds are contractual traps set by Satan – every single one of them.

The WC is no less evil then the Council of Trent, which is no more evil then the Council of Nicea.
They all have the same spiritual author.

Here is something perhaps you can confirm for me.
I did a rigorous, but not comprehensive, search for the word "church" in the New Testament. All I could find is the word "church" with a lower case "c".
What is fascinating is that when I did a search for "church" in the WC and in the Council of Trent they both repeatedly refer to the "Church" with a capital "C".
Those who affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith (WC) belong to the same Church (with a capital C) as described in the Council of Trent. They both belong to a different “Church” (with a capital C) then the “church” (with a lower case c) in the New Testament.

Do you belong to the church in the New Testament?
OR
Do you belong to the Church in the WC and Council of Trent?

There is no in between.

Rip up these false contracts – every last one of them – and liberate your spirit.

Wikipedia: Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".[1] Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70.
Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614) during the Counter-Reformation.

That is not a bad analogy, but it is not a subject that I think is worth debating.

Further than that, with deep respect for all present who have expressed their views on these subjects, it doesn’t concern me if someone is a preterist, a partial-preterist, a post-millennialist, a pre‑millennialist, an historicist et‑al. God will work it all out according to the plan he set out before the foundation of the world, no matter what any of us believe. I think there are far more important issues that should concern us.

Repeating your already-cut-and-pasted information adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation, and it is completely inadequate as a response to my post.

Right on Bro!