Which it certainly did.
But infant baptism aside (I do not consider that particular discussion a salvation issue; Christ's directive was to be baptized. Period. But even without baptism, a man who believes in Christ as Lord, King and Savior will be saved, according to His word.)
I fully expect the Roman church to be at the head of that profane ecumenical community - if it can survive Islam. There is very good reason to believe that whole pope/Roman church=anti-Christ shtick... It is the only candidate that fits the prophecies almost perfectly.
I'm a postmillennial Calvinist, but nobody's perfect. And a trend in some reformed/Christian circles to deny that the papacy may well be the antiChrist is, IMO, a mistake. (This also illustrates the fact that everyone can be deceived about something and no visible church on earth is perfect.)
Almost to a one, EVERY reformer of the Reformation believed that the papacy was the antiChrist.
When that is done:
...So Scripture, Luther, Calvin and Calvinism all teach that antichrist’s days are numbered! The papacy will be brought down by the powerful Protestant preaching of the Word of God! -- II Thessalonians 2:8f cf. Revelation 14:6-8.
"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. " -- Revelation 15:4
You and I have gone around about Baptism before, and historicity and historic tenets (traditions) aside, it is the Biblical foundation for infant baptism which I find to be lacking...
In this I align with the Baptists most closely, finding the general tenor of the Biblical text to be declaring quite plainly that the "Circumcision Made Without Hands" is a better circumcision because it is personal, and does not rely upon the obligations of one's parents, nationality, or of one's gender.
This precludes an infant, because the infant cannot participate knowingly, and following, replaces the act of true Baptism with profession of faith in those churches which practice infant baptism. That is not correct form according to the Word.
But infant baptism aside (I do not consider that particular discussion a salvation issue; Christ's directive was to be baptized. Period. But even without baptism, a man who believes in Christ as Lord, King and Savior will be saved, according to His word.)
Agreed. Though in my view, the Baptism of Fire (the indwelling of the Spirit), to borrow from my charismatic/pentecostal friends, is the confirmation of faith... So while we agree that the "getting wet" part is not the point, I suppose there is a difference in reason.
I do not conclude, in any way, that Calvinists (or others) are therefore excluded, as "Spirit-filled" is the final conclusion and proof - And many Calvinists are indeed, Spirit-filled.
I'm a postmillennial Calvinist, but nobody's perfect.
A good time to note, for the reader, that I was raised Calvinist, and still associate with a Calvinist church - I criticize my own - Something our FRiends in the Roman church suggest we are incapable of doing.
As a semi-dispensational mid-trib (sorta), sabbath observing, charismatic Presbyterian (you think you've got it bad), when I converse with you, I find myself in the best of company. :D
And a trend in some reformed/Christian circles to deny that the papacy may well be the antiChrist is, IMO, a mistake. (This also illustrates the fact that everyone can be deceived about something and no visible church on earth is perfect.)
Almost to a one, EVERY reformer of the Reformation believed that the papacy was the antiChrist.
In this we are in total agreement, at least in form. I am loathe to put my finger on it, as it were, as prophecy is a slippery fish at best... It could go another unforeseen way... But no other organization on earth matches the prophecies as exactly.
Re: baptism, it's my opinion that for a Christian to refuse to baptize his children in the name of the Triune God grew out of a stealth movement of the RCC through Grebel and his priest buddies disrupting Zwingli's study group. What better way to undermine the Reformation than to deny an historic tenet of the Christian faith?Which it certainly did.
But infant baptism aside (I do not consider that particular discussion a salvation issue; Christ's directive was to be baptized. Period. But even without baptism, a man who believes in Christ as Lord, King and Savior will be saved, according to His word.)
Can I point you to yet another book? J. V. Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit, a Reformed Perspective on Baptism.
And a trend in some reformed/Christian circles to deny that the papacy may well be the antiChrist is, IMO, a mistake. ...Almost to a one, EVERY reformer of the Reformation believed that the papacy was the antiChrist.
They had their reasons. An instantiation of Antichrist, able and willing to wage war on the saints with real physical troops.
This understanding became widespread because the Reformation transformed Christianity. Bible literacy became more common and the willingness to scrutinize clergy on the basis of what the Bible said grew. It's not that these things didn't exist before. They did on a smaller scale, but the Reformation changed the dynamic because the power of the state was used to fight those that opposed it.
What we've been talking about is this Reformation may have been a needed transition, but it was not the end.