"I was wrong about the Reformers writing and speaking about catholicism"
Um, no that's not what I said. I said:
"All the Reformers agreed that Catholicism was the beast" this is not true. Neither is this "Catholicism since that is the beast of Revelation"
Of course they were speaking out against Catholic TEACHINGS which the Catholic church, instead of considering and changing, declared were a part of the church and any other view was heretical.
The reformers started in the 16th-century where Luther for example was trying to
discuss and make CHANGES to the church. You brought up a guy from about 1840, a couple of hundred years later.
Is REFORMING the teachings of the church not the origin of the Reformation? Yes or no?
Was it not until AFTER the church started persecuting and executing those people that that changed for many? Yes or no?
They were first discussing, then later denouncing TEACHINGS of the church and later AFTER the church refused and MURDERED many Christians for trying to honor God's Word, they became a beast like those before them, not the beast which was clearly Nero.
Address the rest of what I said supporting that and against your eschatological position.
PS And yes, I gave examples of type/anti-type in my comment although not labeled as such.
Dr James White is one of my pastors so you can imagine how much church history and how many discussions / sermons about the Reformation and reformers I am inundated with if you know who he is.(Who recently changed his end times position to Post-Mill btw)
The 1689 Baptist Confession was written about 140 years before dispensationalism was 'invented'. Further a careful read of ch 7 of the 1689 confession will reveal a carefully constructed covenant theology. And as I'm sure you're aware covenant theology is at odds with Dispensationalism in a number of areas.
"I was wrong about the Reformers writing and speaking about catholicism"
Um, no that's not what I said. I said: "All the Reformers agreed that Catholicism was the beast" this is not true. Neither is this "Catholicism since that is the beast of Revelation"
Of course they were speaking out against Catholic TEACHINGS which the Catholic church, instead of considering and changing, declared were a part of the church and any other view was heretical.
The reformers started in the 16th-century where Luther for example was trying to discuss and make CHANGES to the church. You brought up a guy from about 1840, a couple of hundred years later.
Is REFORMING the teachings of the church not the origin of the Reformation? Yes or no?
Was it not until AFTER the church started persecuting and executing those people that that changed for many? Yes or no?
They were first discussing, then later denouncing TEACHINGS of the church and later AFTER the church refused and MURDERED many Christians for trying to honor God's Word, they became a beast like those before them, not the beast which was clearly Nero.
Address the rest of what I said supporting that and against your eschatological position.
PS And yes, I gave examples of type/anti-type in my comment although not labeled as such.
Dr James White is one of my pastors so you can imagine how much church history and how many discussions / sermons about the Reformation and reformers I am inundated with if you know who he is.(Who recently changed his end times position to Post-Mill btw)
We disagree. Have a good night. I have no desire to argue.
Okay but you haven't said if you disagree about your eschatological position you hold that the Reformers didn't hold since dispensational is really a Nineteenth Century phenomenon.
The 1689 Baptist Confession was written about 140 years before dispensationalism was 'invented'. Further a careful read of ch 7 of the 1689 confession will reveal a carefully constructed covenant theology. And as I'm sure you're aware covenant theology is at odds with Dispensationalism in a number of areas.