Quote
flunky1 said:
I'm weary of the sycophancy on this site at times (except where it's sarcastically couched)!!! Come on, let's be man enough to beg to differ.
Geritol is said to perk up those who feel "weary". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> However, I fail to see where anyone here can be said to have spoken with obsequiousness. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> The fact is that we HAVE been differing, not only on the biblical qualifications of "the" and the "many" antichrists of which both the Apostles Paul and John have written about, but also as to the method of reasoning used to come to your opposing view.

Quote
You then lamented:
Pilgrim, I resent your logically very flawed dismissal of my "illogical" thinking (which I regard as a name-calling cop out rather than a creditable winning of an argument). Let's suppose your future antichrist appears next week. How would you identify him, if not by his dogma and his office? In what other way would he be revealed as THE antichrist, and not AN antichrist?
Your resenting of my alleged "logically flawed" dismissal is noted. However, it doesn't prove that my dismissal of your illogical reasoning is illogical. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

The fact is I don't need any other way to identify the Antichrist other than his "dogma". And, why would I since that is what God has chosen as the primary mark by which he/they are to be identified? That dogma is clearly stated in John's first Epistle, of which both myself and Brad have pointed out. The pope, whether the person or for your benefit, the office, doesn't hold to any of those specific denials, e.g., the Trinity, deity of Christ or the return of the Christ in the flesh. How much clearer would you have had the Holy Spirit put it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]