00:00
00:00
00:01
필사본
1/0
We'll be starting today in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. I'm preaching a two-part message today to conclude, at least for now, our series of messages on the error, the fallacy, and the folly of historicist eschatology. We actually began this series several months back. And to introduce the message here at first hour, I'm going to repeat some of what I said in my opening comments before last week's message. Many Christians today have been blindsided by various false systems of eschatology into dangerously misinterpreting current events and characters on the world stage in light of the teachings of scripture. Many professing Christians, actually deceived by either the preterist or the historicist system of eschatology, have been particularly blinded to the prophetic significance of the demand that drives the politicians and power elite of Washington DC. In other words, their demand for a global American empire that is devoid of all competition or challenge to America's place of dominion in the world. And of course far too many professing Christians are too blind to even see that there is a problem. Many pre-Trib dispensationalists especially, not only approve of but even actually revel in the American war agenda, cheering it on, in fact thinking that they are standing for Israel and doing God some type of service in so doing. and they too are greatly deceived. Many other Christians' eyes are wide open to see the insanity that is the American war agenda, but they fail to grasp the spiritual or the prophetic significance, or to see that America's clearly globalist Masonic agenda results from the fact that the power elite that controls Washington DC, most of them are literal and fully cognizant servants of their father, Lucifer the Devil, and are therefore literally hell-bent on building and bringing to pass the very global empire that John prophesied over 1900 years ago in the book of Revelation. And as stated last week also regarding Donald Trump's much-boasted and self-proclaimed victory in single-handedly allegedly solving the North Korea nuclear problem, as he claims, having signed an agreement with North Korea's ruthless and murderous dictator, Kim Jong-un, that whole so-called peace agreement only really serves to put many Americans back to sleep, thinking all is well and all is right with the American agenda. thinking we will have peace for our time. But I definitely don't believe that we'll have peace for our time as a result of Trump's purported agreement with North Korea. But for this message being the last of a seven-part series about historicist eschatology, which I did actually cover, I covered much ground and presented lots of information. So I think it's important to wrap up the series actually with review of some of the issues that we covered in parts 1-6 and then also to state some conclusions and some additional material. We read in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 1-4 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day, what day? The day of Christ, in verse 2. Which, by the way, is one and the same day as the day of the coming of the Lord, in verse 1. When we will be gathered together unto Him, that day of our blessed Lord's return. Paul says in verse 3, that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 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, showing himself that he is God." Most Christians today grossly misinterpret this passage in one way or another. Dispensationalists most foolishly misinterpret that phrase, falling away, in verse 3 to try to squeeze a pre-trib rapture out of that verse. saying the falling away there actually means a departure from the earth rather than a departure from the faith, as that word apostasia clearly means. On the other hand, both Preterists and Historicists misidentify both the man of sin and the temple in this passage. Preterists generally argue that the passage was fulfilled over a period of a few short years by the Roman general Titus Vespasian who as we know destroyed Jerusalem and Herod's second temple in 70 AD dispersing the Jews from the land and leveled the city. Historicists, on the other hand, say the passage was not fulfilled over just a few short years, and not by just one man, but in fact was fulfilled over several centuries through the office of the papacy, or the Pope of Rome, the head bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. They argue, therefore, that the temple of God in this passage is then the church, they argue, presumably meaning Christ's universal church. And they argue that in declaring himself to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Pope of Rome proclaimed himself to be God in the Temple of God. That's what the historicists argue. I'm going to further show today why we must conclude that this passage was not fulfilled in history, and I believe remains entirely yet to be fulfilled. And further, why I believe we must conclude that though the opposite of the papacy has been obviously extremely anti-Christ over the centuries, John said at the time of his writing that even now, even then, there are many anti-Christs. But for many reasons, the man of sin in this passage, 2 Thessalonians 2, has not been and will not be the Pope of Rome. I'll explain why that is today. Although, the final Pope of Rome will most definitely team up with and work directly with this particular man of sin. I do believe that, for a time at least. I'm also going to explain today why the Temple of God in this passage is not the church, whether universal or local. It is not the same temple that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 6 as the heart or the body of the individual believer in which the Holy Ghost takes up residence. That's not the temple in view. It's also not a combination of all these things that some are arguing and teaching today. But the temple here is and must be one specific temple that is yet to be built in Jerusalem. And one specific act that the Bible says will take place in that location at that one specific time. The purpose of which, I believe from God's perspective and in His eternal plan, is to bring about the restoration of Israel and the Jews that Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 11. So in that regard, this message will actually tie together this series of messages with the prior series we did on the controversy of Zion. So for a quick review, Historicist Eschatology is the view of Bible prophecy that was adopted actually from the Catholic slash Protestant reformers of the 16th century, including John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox, Zwingli, and their contemporaries. and was therefore adopted also by many otherwise good men since then including Matthew Henry, John Gill, John and Charles Wesley, Isaac Newton, Charles Finney and many others and in fact was actually the dominant Protestant position of eschatology until the mid or late 1800s. Though actually this position is still maintained today by a few mainline Protestant denominations and others such as the Seventh-day Adventists who maintain this historicist eschatology. And the system has actually made quite a bit of resurgence in recent years among many others outside those groups. In general, historicists agree with preterists that Christ's prophecies of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in AD 70 So that in that sense, I think historicists could be labeled as partial preterists. However, they depart from both preterists and futurists in their interpretation of the books of Daniel and John's revelation, which they see as symbolically prophesying historical events over the last 24 centuries, actually, progressively unfolding since the time of actually of Judah's return from the captivity in Babylon. So historicism is based, actually entirely, really completely relies on what's called the day-year theory of interpretation, whereby they interpret the length of Antichrist's reign, said to be 42 months actually, in Revelation 11, 2 and 13, 5. and said to be 1,260 days in Revelation 11.3 and 12.6 they interpret that not as 1,260 literal 24 hour days as I believe it must be interpreted but instead as 1,260 years that's how they interpret that the day year theory which also then thus allows Antichrist actually a longer reign on the earth than the earthly millennial or the thousand year reign of Christ is said to last before the consummation of his eternal kingdom. So on that basis then most historicists today agree with the 16th century reformers that the Antichrist prophesied in Revelation 13 and 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 is not to be a single man, a single ruler who will hold political office over a global empire for a short duration of time, three and a half years, just before Christ's return, but instead was fulfilled over these several centuries into continuing and ongoing office of the Roman Catholic papacy. So that such historicists then see every pope that held that office as the Antichrist. They see every Pope as the Antichrist. So based on that same day year theory then as we talked about many historicists of the 18th century, John Charles Wesley, Adam Clark, Isaac Newton, William Miller and many others actually wrongly predicted several different dates for Christ's return between the years 1836 and 2060 based on whenever they presumed that 1260 year period to have begun. But then other more conservative historicists like John Gill and others decided not to take literally Paul's prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2 that antichrist reign would continue until the antichrist would be that man of sin would be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming and so instead Gill and others focus on Paul's words there that the man of sin would be consumed by the spirit of Christ's mouth which Gill interprets as being overcome and defeated by the preaching of the gospel that was accomplished in the Protestant Reformation. And so that seems to be the prevailing position held by many historicists today, including Chuck Baldwin, which, as I'd said before, explains why Brother Baldwin does such a great job of preaching against the wicked imperial policies of Washington DC, but completely fails to recognize or to acknowledge the extent to which that city is actually controlled by Rome. Turn please to Matthew chapter 24. We've given many, many arguments in this series to refute and to disprove the entire historicist system. We obviously have no time to review all those arguments today, I'm not going to do that, but for those who have not heard the series, I would definitely encourage or urge you to go back and listen to the various messages we have posted online. and take notes. But for today, the major error of historicist eschatology, that leads to many other resultant errors, is that like preterism, historicism spiritualizes and allegorizes many Bible texts that should be interpreted literally, especially those contained in the book of Revelation and Christ's Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. many historicists in fact today actually cling to and they make their boast in historicism simply because it was the eschatology of the reformers that led the Protestant Reformation. By the way, those same reformers, many Protestants today, really foolishly seem to put on some kind of an equal theological or doctrinal par with the apostles. There are some great theologians. I would point out today that there really is no good reason for that type of veneration of the Protestant reformers. They actually simply found out that the Montanists, the Paulicians, the Donatists, the Waldenses, and the Anabaptists who refused to identify with the state church from the 3rd century onward were in many ways right all along. And they were just now catching up with those Baptists that preceded them and finally taking the same stance that the Baptists had taken for centuries. For which most of those Baptists had been actually put to death by the Inquisitions of Rome. which is why Cardinal Husius, Roman Catholic Cardinal Husius, who presided the Council of Trent in 1545, said, were it not for the fact that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm greater and greater numbers than all the Reformers. He said, if the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man or any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer and surer than those of the Anabaptists. This is a Roman Catholic cardinal. Since there have been none for the twelve hundred years past who have been more genuinely punished or that have been more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone and have offered themselves to the most cruel sort of punishment than these people. Mosheim, who was an outstanding Lutheran historian, said, before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptists. He said, the origin of Baptists is lost in the remote depths of antiquity. The first century, he said, was the history of Baptists. That's Mosheim Lutheran. Huldrych Zwingli, who was a reformer renowned reformer, Presbyterian co-worker with John Calvin, said the institution of the Anabaptist is no novelty, he said for 1300 years has caused great trouble in the church. we said about the Baptists. Robert Barclay, who was a Quaker historian, says of the Baptists, we shall afterwards show that the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe, small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the Apostles. He said, in the sense of the Direct transmission of divine truth, the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church." That was a Quaker who said that. John Clark Ridpath, who has been called one of the greatest historians the world has ever produced. He was actually a Methodist by denomination. He said, I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 AD. Although without doubt, he said there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists. That's what a Methodist says. So the point here is that while the Reformers should be respected for their stand, indeed, they simply took the same stand against the Roman Catholic Church that the Baptists have been taking for centuries. And no one, I don't think, should put the Reformers on a pedestal as though they were impeccable and infallible in their doctrine, and no one should really cling to or make their boast in historicism simply because it was the eschatology of the Reformers, as many historicists today do. of the well-known reformers, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox, Zwingli. along with John Wycliffe, who preceded them in the 14th century, all of these men were former Catholic priests. And all of them, I would say, retained far too much Roman Catholic doctrine in their theology, including their retention of infant baptism and their statist view of a church, which they maintained was to be a universal state church that would wield the power of the sword and could put heretics to death. But Calvin believed, and those errors also include their view of the Revelation, which was very heavily influenced by Augustine's non-literal, spiritualized view of the Revelation in the Olivet Discourse. The Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24, 29-31, Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Verse 31. And he shall send his angels with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Like preterists, who see all Bible prophecies having already been fulfilled, historicists also say this very prophecy of the Lord Jesus, of his glorious coming, has already been fulfilled. And was fulfilled when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. That's what the historicists say as well. They spiritualize and allegorize this text here to say that Jesus' glorious coming here was just a spiritual coming rather than literal and bodily. And that he came through the armies of Rome, just like the preterists say, to bring judgment on the Jews and the nation of Israel. And they therefore say that the angels here are being sent out to gather the elect. at the sound of a trumpet, are simply missionaries or evangelists going out throughout the earth to preach the gospel and convert the world to Christ. That's the historicist's position. And we've shown in several, by the way it has to be their position, they have to take that position, they're forced to. And we've shown several messages where that conclusion is absolutely impossible. It's absolutely preposterous. And in my opinion, completely foolish. And yet, historicists have to maintain that position. They must contort this passage and pervert the very words of the Lord Jesus to their utter shame. They're forced to do that. They're forced into that untenable conclusion. Because their preconceived position is that the papacy through the ages has been the Antichrist. and the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 that which completely relies on this entire passage having been previously fulfilled including the tribulation of those days here in verse 21 through 29 and which includes the abomination of desolation in verse 15 that had to have already been fulfilled because if these things were not fulfilled in history If this coming of the Lord in power and glory in verse 30 is really yet future, if it's the future literal bodily return and second coming of Christ, which I say it obviously is, which by the way is precisely what the disciples asked him about in verse 3. Will it be a sign of your coming? That's what they're asking him about. That is the plain sense interpretation of this passage. Which, by the way, completely harmonizes with all other New Testament references and actually also in Daniel and Zechariah about the second coming of Christ. Completely harmonizes. But if the historicist admits that, if he admits that Christ's glorious return is in view here, then he must also conclude that the tribulation period here described by the Lord Jesus in verse 21-29 and the abomination of desolation is also yet future. Which he cannot do. He can't do that. And therefore, also so would be the prophecies of Revelation 6-19 and Daniel 7-12. He can't do that. And so their entire system would crumble around them. Just as it should, I would say. It should crumble around them, but they won't let it do so. And so, because their interpretive approach is so weak and built on really a crumbling house of cards, historicists including the SD, the Seventh-day Adventists, and others, like the Jesuits, they propagate a lie to demonize the truth. They cite to this commentary by the Jesuit priest Francisco Rivera. Citing to that commentary, they continue to propagate the lie that the futurist view of Bible prophecy is a Jesuit concoction designed to divert attention away from the papacy as the Antichrist. When we've shown, and we're going to show again today, that the futurist position was clearly taught in this very passage by the Lord Jesus himself. He was a futurist and it was also very clearly the position of the early church as we've shown in Part 3 of the series and looking at the 2nd century writings of Iriannaeus, which we're going to take a look at today. But that said, even if it was true that a Jesuit priest named Ribera advanced a literal interpretation of the 1260 days of John's Revelation, and fulfillment of that time is yet future, I would repeat, as stated before, that it's not above the Jesuits or the devil himself to use the truth when it helps their cause. And all I really care about is what does the Bible say? That's all I care about. And the Bible proves the futurist position as I believe we've clearly shown in this series. In part one of the series we introduced the topic and began refuting the day-year theory. And then we went into the books of Daniel and Zechariah to show how that theory completely falls apart. The first argument against historicism that we gave in part one is that it allows for a wide variety of completely arbitrary and unfounded interpretations of John's Revelation, whereby the entire book of Revelation basically becomes wide open to personal, private interpretation. In part two we We refuted the view that Christ's Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70 and in Part 3 we devoted more time to debunking the Day Year Theory. And in Parts 4 and 5 we looked closely at the grammar and the context of Daniel Chapter 9 to prove that the man who confirms the covenant of Daniel 9.27 is not the Christ as historicists must claim, but is in fact the Antichrist who also perpetrates the abomination of desolation. Seen in that verse in Daniel 9.27 and also in Daniel chapters 8, 11, and 12. And therefore the Antichrist does therefore have a very brief reign of just three and a half years as we read in Revelation 13, which then is the latter half of the 70th week of years of Daniel chapter 9. And then we showed how Daniel 11-12 shows that event, the abomination of desolation, and also that time of trouble that the Lord Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24 we just read. He quoted from Daniel 12 verse 1. Both passages calling that time a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. And when also Daniel's people, the Jews, would be delivered rather than decimated as they were in AD 70. which is the same deliverance we see in Zechariah 12-14. And so we show that could therefore not possibly have been fulfilled in history and must yet be future. Especially since Daniel 12 verse 2 also shows that those events are related to the future resurrection. That's very clear. We looked at all those things in the past. These things taken together I believe conclusively prove the historicist system to be false. and the future is positioned to be absolutely correct, and absolutely mandatory for one who would be honest with the scriptures, I do believe. And so therefore, the conclusion is that the length of Antichrist's reign, said to be 1260 days in Revelation 3 and 12.6, and also 42 months in Revelation 11.2 and 13.5, cannot be interpreted figuratively as 1260 years, and it must be taken literally as 1260 days, equals 42 months, three and a half years. Which coincidentally is the same time period seen in Daniel 9.27, the second half of that 70th week. Three and a half years. It's really not by coincidence. So, all this is again exactly the same conclusion that was taught in the second century by Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn the disciple of John the Apostle. And once again, because it does bear repeating, I'm going to quote a little bit here from Irenaeus again. In reference to the length of Antichrist's reign, Irenaeus stated as follows, you can follow along in the handout there, in again, Tereses, Book 5, Chapter 25, in the section there titled, The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist. Irenaeus said, I've got it highlighted there for you, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise, and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings. And he shall speak words against the Most High God, and wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall have purpose to change times and laws, and everything shall be given into his hand until a time of times and half a time." Daniel 7.23 etc. Irenaeus says, that is, for three years and six months, not 1260 years, three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom, says Irenaeus, the apostle Paul, again speaking in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says, and then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of his mouth and destroy by the presence of his coming. Later on down that handout, down to chapter 30, I'll highlight it for you down there. Irenaeus again says of that time of Antichrist's reign, he says, But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem, and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire. So, Irenaeus was a futurist who took John's time periods literally. 14 centuries before Francisco Ribeiro, the Jesuit, penned his work, allegedly putting forth the same conclusions. Turn please to Revelation 17. So then in part 6 of the series we looked at Revelation 17. We see here what John describes beginning in verse 3, as a woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. He says the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. Verse 5, And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. John says that woman was drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. I stated in part 6 that I fully agree with the historicist that the woman and this beast of Revelation 17 have been in existence for many centuries. That woman, who John calls the whore, does of course signify the false religious system of the Roman Catholic Church as headed by the papacy. And that beast that she is riding, having seven heads and ten horns, is indeed the Roman Empire of which that woman held the reins for many centuries. Those 10 horns are 10 kings that are said to rule with the beast for one hour. A very short time period, by the way. As also signified, we saw in the 10 toes on the image in the king's dream in Daniel chapter 2. Those 10 toes on that image were the same as these 10 kings here. Turn now to Daniel chapter 7. This beast in Revelation 17 is one of the same beasts that we also see in Revelation chapter 13. and verses 1-8 and also is the fourth beast that we saw that beast or that empire in Daniel chapter 7 where we see that beast continues, the reason I want to bring you here we need to see here that beast continues in power right up until the time that Christ returns to establish his millennial reign. Daniel 7 verse 19 and I would know the truth of the fourth beast which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass, which he devoured, breaking pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet. And the ten horns that were in his head, and the other which came up, before him three fell, even though that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spoke very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. Verse 21. I beheld, and that same horn, that's the Antichrist, by the way, made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. Until the Ancient of Days came, a judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Verse 23, Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. Verse 24, And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise. And another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, and shall subdue three kings. Verse 25, And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws, And they, times and laws, shall be given unto his hand, until a time, and times, and the dividing of time. That same phrase by the way we see in Revelation 12, which again is three and a half years. Time, times, and dividing, and a half a time. Verse 26, But the judgment shall set, and they shall take away his dominion. to consume and destroy it unto the end. When? And the dominion and the kingdom and the greatness of the kingdom unto the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. And all dominions shall serve and obey him. That beast, that antichrist, that horn, continues in power until the time of the judgment. Verse 26, until the judgment shall set. And shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And then the Lord Jesus comes and reigns, as we saw earlier in that chapter. So this fourth empire is indisputably that of Rome. And though actually other empires have arisen over the centuries, including the British and the Ottoman empires, those are given no mention in this chapter. The fourth empire here, which is diverse from all others, is to continue in some form in power until Christ returns in power and glory to establish his kingdom. We see that also in Daniel chapter 2. Same thing. Back to Revelation 17 then. The 10 horns on the beast are 10 inferior kings who rule together with the beast, which also has 7 heads by the way. There's 10 kings and there's 7 heads. John says in Revelation 13 verse 3, And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast. Personally, I believe that the seven heads on the beast represent seven kings or Caesars that actually ruled the Roman Empire throughout history. The fatal head wound, personally, I believe represents the loss of temporal or political power that was inflicted on the Roman Empire and on that beast by the Protestant Reformation. That's my belief. And that now, The regaining of that same political or temporal power that the Vatican has built through its proxy in a vassal state, the American Empire, is how that beast is now recovering from its fatal head wound and regaining its empire status. Possessing the mightiest military on earth with 800 military bases strategically placed all over the globe and 70 foreign nations and a naval force that's in full dominance of the seven seas. And all the world wandered after the beast. saying who is able to make war with the beast. So that, I believe, is how the fourth beast of Daniel 7, the same beast that we see in Revelation 17, has, I believe, continued in power and will continue in power until Christ returns to establish his kingdom. And though many refuse to see it, the Roman Catholic papacy at present still holds the reins of that beast. That wicked imperial city Washington DC is, as stated and at present, despite all the theater and political wrangling to the contrary between the puppets, still controlled and dominated by the puppet masters who hold controlling stock in its banking system, which is the Vatican and Rome. that ancient harlot, Mystery Babylon the Great, who still rides that scarlet beast that was and is not and yet is. That's interesting. Was and is not and yet is. That's the beast. Then we read at the end of chapter 17 that that harlot Revelation 17. But Harlot loses her power, and is thrown off to the back of the beast. Revelation 17 verse 16. And the ten horns were set asault upon the beast. These shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. Why? Verse 17. For God hath put it in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled. verse 18, and the woman which thou sawest is that great city, Rome, by the way, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. So then, at some point in time, that harlot is thrown off the beast and that eleventh horn of Daniel 7 comes into power among the ten. Daniel 7 verse 24, And the ten horns out of his kingdom are ten kings that shall arise, and another shall arise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, and shall subdue three kings. So then, who is that eleventh king? Who is the Antichrist? The man of sin of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. On that note, and with that question, we'll take a break. We'll come back in the second hour to Daniel chapter 11.
(7) The Reformers' Big Blunder
시리즈 The Error of Historicism
Part 1 of the final 2-part conclusion to our sermon series on the fallacies and folly of the historicist eschatology of the Protestant reformers that many still cling to today, highlighting how the reformers retained far too much Roman Catholic thinking in their theology, which included their non-literal and allegoric approach to the Revelation and to Christ's words in the Olivet Discourse -- which very words their historicist system FORCED them to pervert, much to their shame...
설교 아이디( ID) | 626189896 |
기간 | 37:12 |
날짜 | |
카테고리 | 일요일 예배 |
성경 본문 | 데살로니가후서 2:1-4; 마태복음 24:29-31 |
언어 | 영어 |
댓글 추가하기
댓글
댓글이 없습니다