Understanding "THE MAN OF SIN IS REVEALED" passage.

[Truth7t7]

You can deny being made spiritually alive when we were spiritually dead in trespasses and sins is the first resurrection.

Yes I will continue to deny your unbiblical claims

Salvation isn't a "Resurrection" as you claim, this word is exclusively used in the Bible to represent the last day bodily resurrection that takes place at the second coming

I Strongly Disagree

 

[Randy Kluth]

No.

Nothing wrong with that. God, one inspired writer says, allows the spirit of deception to remain in the midst of the church (tares and wheat) so that we never forget our great need for His protection and continued prayer for Holy Spirit discernment.

Yes, the mix is for us to discern the difference and then make our choice. It's also to show patience to those who vacillate and may come to the truth eventually. God is patient, not wanting to bring quick judgment upon anybody.

Let's examine that - is it possible to mix EQUAL PORTIONS of all the above? Can the same Antichrist come in the past but also in the future?

Of course not.

Therefore, at some point in our "truth culling" one of these many belief systems must begin to dominate our systematic theology - and those whose theology centers around a future Antichrist must admit that at the core of their belief is Jesuit Futurism.

No, that's where I took issue with what you said. Yes, there cannot be "equal" amounts of each theology in one's systematic theology. And yes, some elements are going to dominate--that's why I said I'm Postrib, Premill.

But I am confused with being either a Historicist or a Preterist at times because of my view of the Olivet Discourse. I feel the central message of that discourse was not Futurism, but rather the historical judgment of Jesus' generation for having rejected him.

But I'm in no way allied with the Jesuits, although I could perhaps borrow some of their arguments. As I said, I'm not a full-blown Futurist, nor am I a historicist in the sense that I believe, like the Reformers, that the Catholic Pope was the Antichrist or the False Prophet. Some things partly fulfilled in the past still have a culminating moment in the future, in my view.

There are clearly some things about the Jesuits I would not want to associate with, namely their apparent radicalism and Catholic zealotry. But Futurism extends far before them in the Early Church. Not only did the Church Fathers believe in a future 2nd Coming of Christ, but they also believed--most of them, in a future Antichrist. Paul said he must appear *before* Christ's coming and Kingdom.

Would you consider it to be "name calling" if you identified a person as a "child molestor" who moved in across the street after having being paroled from serving time in prison for child molestation?

Depends on whether he or she had truly repented or not. Most likely I would identify the person as a "child molester" if he or she had habitually done that. It's a legitimate neighborhood warning.

Likewise, if Jesuits formulated Futurism, then it is more than appropriate to refer to it as such, seeing that NO TRACE OF THIS TEACHING CAN BE FOUND ANYWHERE in the world before the 16th century Protestant Reformation when Historicism was indicting the Papacy as the prophesied Antichrist.

Historicism would never have existed among the Reformers had there not been some sense of Futurism in the Early Church. Since they had been taught that Antichrist is coming--future, they were able to identify a semblance of him in the Catholic Church at that time. Clearly, there have been Antichrists, in a sense, in the Protestant churches, as well.

But I wouldn't associate the Jesuits with "child molesters," nor do I think their theology at all resembles something so corrupt in regard to Futurism. I don't know why you don't see Futurism in the Early Church? What are you basing your statement about this on?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Exactly! The spirit within man's body is defined - a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:—ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. The soul much like the spirit is defined - heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you. Since the spirit in man with the Holy Spirit is eternal it makes sense to describe the martyred in heaven as living souls. Because when we have life, with either physical body or spiritual body we are living souls.

If someone should say "I am with you in spirit" while physically alive, it means my heart, and mind is thinking of you.

No, I don't see the existence of human spirits as eternal only because they are associated with the eternal Spirit of God. It's certainly true that God must exist for us to exist. But it is not true, in my thinking, that the association of God's Spirit with the spirits of saints is what makes them eternal. As I've been saying, unsaved people have eternal spirits, just as saved people do.

Both spirit and soul suggest life. Our spirit is not exactly the same as soul, because our spirit returns to God when we die. A soul and spirit cease all life functions when our body dies without His Spirit in us. It is the Spirit of God in that gives our spirit eternal life. As long as we possess eternal life we are living (spirit) souls after our body dies.

No, the spirit obtains eternal life when he or she receives Christ. The spirit of a person remains in existence regardless of their association with Christ.

Yes, and if we have His Spirit in us when we die, we are a spirit in heaven waiting for our immortal & incorruptible body.

Saved people are indeed spirits in heaven waiting for their resurrection to incorruptibility. But unsaved people are spirits in limbo, as well, waiting to be resurrected to their own respective fate.

Those who are saved have the life-giving Spirit from Christ in them. We receive His Spirit in life/time when we are born again, when we believe. That's what makes believers different than unbelievers. Believers don't become spiritual body in heaven until their body dies.

I don't believe the Saved put on "spiritual bodies" in heaven after death and before they are resurrected to immortality. I believe it is their resurrection that is to be identified as the "spiritual body." It is a physical body with spiritual attributes, by virtue of their association with Christ.

Because the life we receive when we believe, are born again, will never end. That life is His life in our spirit that shall never die. That's how John knows that those martyred for their faith, are without a physical body, but are spiritually alive in heaven as spirit souls.

I agree that the Spirit Christ gives us is what gives believers Eternal Life, yes.

Maybe I grow tired of saying the same thing as many different ways I know how, because you seem never to really consider what is said. I think you would rather be right than pursue truth, and that is why I grow weary of repeating myself.

Not at all. I've changed positions many, many times in my life, and take pride in my ability to be corrected, if necessary. The older I get it seems the less I have to change my positions. Give me a good argument, and I may change my position. Thus far, no matter how many ways you present this, I can't agree--doesn't seem biblical to me.

1) We don't have "spiritual bodies" in heaven before we are raised from the dead. The resurrection body *is* the "spiritual body" we are to put on.
2) Our spirits are eternal, regardless of our association with Christ. Those associated with Christ not only exist forever, but we also have eternal fellowship with God. Unbelievers exist forever in resurrection bodies, but do not share in the nature of Christian virtue, which is what we often call "Eternal Life."

 

[Phoneman777]

But I am confused with being either a Historicist or a Preterist at times because of my view of the Olivet Discourse. I feel the central message of that discourse was not Futurism, but rather the historical judgment of Jesus' generation for having rejected him.

But I'm in no way allied with the Jesuits, although I could perhaps borrow some of their arguments. As I said, I'm not a full-blown Futurist, nor am I a historicist in the sense that I believe, like the Reformers, that the Catholic Pope was the Antichrist or the False Prophet. Some things partly fulfilled in the past still have a culminating moment in the future, in my view.

Jesuits formulated both Futurism and Preterism. The Historicists have it right. Every point of "proof" text offered to me over the years to support either Jesuit Futurism or Jesuit Preterism I've shown to actually support Historicism.

There are clearly some things about the Jesuits I would not want to associate with, namely their apparent radicalism and Catholic zealotry.

How do you feel about this quote from them?

"Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we (the Jesuits) are able to seize it…for three centuries past (from the days of Luther until just before the 'discovery' of the Alexandrian Family Greek MSS) this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." (The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1).

But Futurism extends far before them in the Early Church. Not only did the Church Fathers believe in a future 2nd Coming of Christ, but they also believed--most of them, in a future Antichrist. Paul said he must appear *before* Christ's coming and Kingdom.

The ECFs were Historicist, hands down. For instance, those that had anything to say about it said the "Restrainer" of 2 Thess. 2 was NOT some Godly agent of holiness - as Jesuit Futurists teach - but the ROMAN EMPIRE. Yes, they taught that as soon as the Rome fell, the Antichrist would arise and history testifies that when Rome fell, the Papacy arose and fulfilled all the identifying marks of Bible prophecy.

Historicism would never have existed among the Reformers had there not been some sense of Futurism in the Early Church. Since they had been taught that Antichrist is coming--future, they were able to identify a semblance of him in the Catholic Church at that time. Clearly, there have been Antichrists, in a sense, in the Protestant churches, as well.

Acknowledging future fulfilment of prophecy doesn't make one a Futurist since ALL PROPHECY has future fulfilllment. It's the distinct teachings of Futurism that make one a Futurist.

But I wouldn't associate the Jesuits with "child molesters," nor do I think their theology at all resembles something so corrupt in regard to Futurism. I don't know why you don't see Futurism in the Early Church? What are you basing your statement about this on?

My point is that it's not "name calling" to identify the Jesuits with Futurism. Have you ever read what "prophecy's greatest Bible teacher in England" has had to say about what the ECFs believed?

I've grown so weary of talking with people (not you) who think they know what it's all about when what they have is only HALF the story! And when you try to share the other half, they violently defend their half instead of opening their minds to consider new facts, as Paul so clearly admonishes us to do! Please take a look at what H. Grattan Guinness has to say:

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesuits formulated both Futurism and Preterism. The Historicists have it right. Every point of "proof" text offered to me over the years to support either Jesuit Futurism or Jesuit Preterism I've shown to actually support Historicism.

How do you feel about this quote from them?

"Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we (the Jesuits) are able to seize it…for three centuries past (from the days of Luther until just before the 'discovery' of the Alexandrian Family Greek MSS) this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." (The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1).

The ECFs were Historicist, hands down. For instance, those that had anything to say about it said the "Restrainer" of 2 Thess. 2 was NOT some Godly agent of holiness - as Jesuit Futurists teach - but the ROMAN EMPIRE. Yes, they taught that as soon as the Rome fell, the Antichrist would arise and history testifies that when Rome fell, the Papacy arose and fulfilled all the identifying marks of Bible prophecy.

Acknowledging future fulfilment of prophecy doesn't make one a Futurist since ALL PROPHECY has future fulfilllment. It's the distinct teachings of Futurism that make one a Futurist.

My point is that it's not "name calling" to identify the Jesuits with Futurism. Have you ever read what "prophecy's greatest Bible teacher in England" has had to say about what the ECFs believed?

I've grown so weary of talking with people (not you) who think they know what it's all about when what they have is only HALF the story! And when you try to share the other half, they violently defend their half instead of opening their minds to consider new facts, as Paul so clearly admonishes us to do! Please take a look at what H. Grattan Guinness has to say:

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

Brother, none of this is new to me. The ECFs would only be considered Historicists, I think, by Historicists themselves, and only because they thought the Roman Empire was the Antichrist. But that didn't make them Historicists.

They believed in THE future Antichrist, and rightly expected that Rome was the 4th Kingdom of Dan 7, which would lead to the Kingdom of Christ. Indeed the Roman Kingdom is the 4th Kingdom and is still in existence and leading to the Kingdom of Christ. It's just taken far longer than the ECFs expected, perhaps, although some of them believed in the Millennial Day theory, which would have extended the Roman Kingdom much farther out in time.

I'm aware of what the Catholics wanted to do, to prevent Reformers from identifying their Pope as the Antichrist/False Prophet. But they were correct that the Catholic Church was not THE Antichrist/False Prophet..at least not yet! Again, the fulfillment of the Antichrist was farther out than the Reformers may have expected. But that does not prohibit me from calling them, in a sense, Futurists.

When you try to identify the "distinct features of Futurism," you are deciding what those features are, and I'm not convinced you're correct to try to capsulize all of the identifying features in a single movement, such as Dispensationalism. For example, there are non-Dispensationalists today.

And there are Futurists today who would not remotely identify with the Jesuit brand of Futurism, like myself, who would identify more with the Futurism of the ECFs, who believed that Revelation is to be fulfilled in the last 3.5 years of the age. This is unlike Preterism, which believes Revelation was essentially fulfilled in the early centuries of the Church.

Historicism locks every prophecy into ongoing historical revelation, without any real futuristic distinctives, except perhaps the Return of Christ. But even that has a kind of Futurism associated with it, inasmuch as who can say when the Catholic Church will actually become THE Antichrist?

That is the distinctive that qualifies as a definition for Futurism, I think--the idea of a defined future Antichrist who reigns for 3.5 years and whose kingdom is destroyed at the Return of Christ. But I agree with Historicism inasmuch as all of history is a kind of unfolding of divine prophecy. And I think Dan 2 and 7 reflect that, though Antichrist is clearly identified and distinguished as something taking place in the last 3.5 years of the age, and not in preliminary historical movements.

Again, the ECFs and I also have believed that Antichrist emerges out of the old Roman Empire. But this is not counter to Futurism, which most often believes in a literal Antichrist figure at the end of history, quite distinct from the movements that precede him.

As such, I call ECFs not Historicists, but rather, Futurists. And that's how I also identify. But I'm not a Dispensationalist.

I must say, though, that I agree with the Dispensationalist belief in the salvation of national Israel at Christ's Return. That belief was lost by the ECFs.

You see, it's more complicated that the labels you're trying to fit things into, in my opinion. Dispensationalists may have borrowed some elements from Jesuit Futurism, but sometimes you can learn things from Christians who you generally disagree with.

Beyond some Jesuits, who have undesirable traits, is biblical theology, which isn't just represented by the Jesuits, but more, by even earlier movements. In the time of Paul, he wrote that Israel would be saved as a nation at Christ's Return, in Rom 11. So regardless of whether the Jesuits stimulated the Dispensationalist belief in Israel's Salvation, it was Paul that founded their belief in the Salvation of Israel.

The same can be said for Premillennialism, which the Apostle John and his followers taught, and was even carried on by some of the ECFs. It really doesn't matter if the Jesuits taught this, though I don't think they did. Whatever Futurism they influenced Irving and Darby with, Premillennialism had an earlier source in the Early Church. It was ultimately the Bible that carried the inspiration, despite the quality of any possible messenger.

 

[Phoneman777]

and only because they thought the Roman Empire was the Antichrist.

Randy, my friend who claims to have "heard it all before", I gave you an excellent link which details by evidence testimony what the ECFs believed and you've clearly chosen to ignore it, preferring to rely on the incorrect knowledge you've gained.

THE ECFS DID NOT THINK THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS THE ANTICHRIST, UNDERSTAND? The ECFs taught the Roman Empire was the Restrainer which was preventing the rise of Antichrist.

Let me know when you've read the link and then we can talk. Thanks.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy, my friend who claims to have "heard it all before", I gave you an excellent link which details by evidence testimony what the ECFs believed and you've clearly chosen to ignore it, preferring to rely on the incorrect knowledge you've gained.

THE ECFS DID NOT THINK THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS THE ANTICHRIST, UNDERSTAND? The ECFs taught the Roman Empire was the Restrainer which was preventing the rise of Antichrist.

Let me know when you've read the link and then we can talk. Thanks.

Phoneman, you don't seem to have read my own responses to your points very well? Your link says exactly what I've been saying, that the ECFs largely believed the 4th Kingdom of Daniel was Rome and represented the *last Kingdom before Christ's Kingdom comes.*

As such, they believed a literal Antichrist would emerge from the Roman Kingdom, assuming control over 10 constituent parts of that Kingdom. I did *not* mean to imply that there would be no literal Antichrist assuming control over that Kingdom. The Beast, in my view, is both the Kingdom of Antichrist and the Antichrist himself.

The ECFs believed Rome was the Antichrist system, and that's obviously what I was saying, since I explained that the ECFs had a futurist bent as well, believing in a coming Antichrist--not just the Kingdom that introduces him. I said they believed the Roman Empire was the last Kingdom that ultimately would result in a literal Antichrist, who has not come yet, who will be destroyed at the coming of Christ.

I don't know where you're getting your unrighteous indignation from, but it shouldn't be directed at me. I've read the Church Fathers on these matters.

And you will obviously get things a bit slanted depending on who you read. The Jesuit conspiracy theorists will paint everything as you do. The Preterists will use the same ECF quotes to establish their own beliefs, as will the historicists and futurists.

But we've apparently both read the Church Fathers on these matters. I just don't see where your problem is coming from? Maybe I've thrown too much at you at once? I may not get every "i" dotted, and every "t" crossed, but I'm pretty familiar with these matters. It would be nice if you eased up a bit, slowed down, and realize that I've not said anything remotely like you're accusing me of saying?

I obviously was *not* saying that the ECFs believed the 4th Kingdom was the Antichrist in the sense that the city or empire of Rome displaces any concept of a literal man who will be the Antichrist. The ECFs believed that the Roman Kingdom is the final Kingdom, over which Antichrist will reign. In that sense alone I meant to say that the ECFs believed the 4th Kingdom is the Antichrist, or the "Antichrist Kingdom."

I've been saying for quite a while on this very forum that the ECFs believed Roman government was the "restrainting power" Paul referred to in 2 Thes 2. So obviously I'm saying that the Antichrist system of Rome would have to first see its unity destroyed in order to break into 10 parts, over which the Antichrist will assume power. I don't blame you if you don't catalogue what each of us here believes, but believe me, I've been saying this for a long time. None of this is new, brother.

 

[ScottA]

Oh, so many rabbit hole 'isms!

"Let the dead bury their own dead."​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Oh, so many rabbit hole 'isms!

"Let the dead bury their own dead."​

Well, if you're a rabbit, you should then be happy?

 

[ScottA]

Well, if you're a rabbit, you should then be happy?

Indeed, and good people of God and God have and do go into the depths that they may save some. However, 'isms are the dead left by the dead who should instead be concerned with their own place before God, while today is still today.

It is one thing to study such things, even to learn from them and show others the error. It's just that the sheer quantity means some actually abide in them, and begin to prefer it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Indeed, and good people of God and God have and do go into the depths that they may save some. However, 'isms are the dead left by the dead who should instead be concerned with their own place before God, while today is still today.

It is one thing to study such things, even to learn from them and show others the error. It's just that the sheer quantity means some actually abide in them, and begin to prefer it.

Well, they do reflect a developing consensus among some at certain points in history. And quite often, the points being made are well made in their own time. The excesses and chaff follows, but should not hide the major emphases that were being made at the time.

That's why I take every view expressed here seriously. Not only did these schools of thought make sense in their time--they're still making some sense today. The entire scheme may not be perfect, but behind it all is often an important error that needed to be corrected in a previous scheme.

But I agree with you. These "isms" can become a shelter for those who simply wish to participate in a gang of thugs who wish to beat up on any real or perceived enemy. They sometimes have less interest in truth than in pushing a political agenda.

Good point! The "rabbits" really do like all of the holes to go down. It's their thing!

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman, you don't seem to have read my own responses to your points very well?

Sorry, but I didn't read it at all, as I indicated in my last post.

As soon as I read what you wrote - namely, that the ECFs thought the Roman Empire was the Antichrist - I stopped reading.

If you've read the link to the excerpts of H. Grattan Guinness's "Romanism and the Reformation", you'll know by now that the ECFs taught Rome was the Restrainer preventing the rise of the Antichrist.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry, but I didn't read it at all, as I indicated in my last post.

As soon as I read what you wrote - namely, that the ECFs thought the Roman Empire was the Antichrist - I stopped reading.

If you've read the link to the excerpts of H. Grattan Guinness's "Romanism and the Reformation", you'll know by now that the ECFs taught Rome was the Restrainer preventing the rise of the Antichrist.

It numbs my mind to think that you admit to not reading my post and yet at the same time condemn me for not reading your link?? It should cause you to pause a bit and understand that you cannot make judgments when you read less than half of what I'm saying. What if I explain later that what was meant was not what it sounded like initially?

In this case that is apparently what happened. You thought that I was saying the ECFs believed Rome was the Antichrist, when if you had read further you would've realized that I'm just saying the system was part of the buildup towards the coming of Antichrist to embrace that Kingdom?

I certainly was not saying that the ECFs believed the Roman Empire is the man called "the Antichrist!" No, I was saying quite plainly that they believed, as futurists, that a literal man called "the Antichrist" is coming at the end of the history of the Roman imperial tradition in Europe.

But I appreciate your admission that you didn't read what I said. In the future, don't read the first lines, and then respond before seeing the full story please?

As to the Roman Empire being the Restrainer of 2 Thes 2, I've been saying this for years on these forums!!! I feel like I've been a major player informing others of this fact when it seemed relative few even knew that's what the Church Fathers believed! If you did a little research on forums like this one, you would see that for sure. So much for your premature condemnation of my ignorance...

Well, I just briefly did a search, and saw this discussion between you and me! Who Is "the Restrainer" In 2 Thess. 2:6-7
It's dated in February 5 of this last year, where I said in post #554: "I agree that the Early Church had the view that the Roman Empire was the Restrainer and the Restraint of Antichrist's appearance." There, you also thought you were telling me something I hadn't known when in reality I've known this for years!

 

[Phoneman777]

It numbs my mind to think that you admit to not reading my post and yet at the same time condemn me for not reading your link??

I see no hypocrisy. I have good reason to disregard your post (contains erroneous facts of history) while you have no reason to ignore my link (opportunity to correct your erroneous facts of history).

I was debating Truth7t7 about whether the whore of Revelation 17 was the Papacy or Jerusalem, and I showed him the whore "is that great city which REIGNETH over the kings of the Earth" where "reigneth" is present tense. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire which reigned over the kings of the Earth in John's day.

Truth7t7 responded with "Yes, Jerusalem WILL RULE..." which is future tense. See what he did there? He changed the public testimony of Scripture to fit his private interpretation of prophecy, as you've changed public facts about the ECFs testimony regarding Antichrist for the same. Please read the link so you gain understanding about Historicism in history.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I see no hypocrisy. I have good reason to disregard your post (contains erroneous facts of history) while you have no reason to ignore my link (opportunity to correct your erroneous facts of history).

Excuses! Of course you're being hypocritical! You have no right to *demand* I read links you provide. I can respond to any part of your message I like--I have that right, without you berating me for not reading your link. Do you think I have the right to send you links and then demand you read them? No.

You cut me off without reading the whole context of what I was saying. You treated me like the 1st part I was saying was enough to judge me on what you *thought* I said, without caring to read the whole message. It wasn't even a *link!*

I really don't care to talk to people like you who have no shame, who have no sense of right and wrong, who fail to apologize for mistakes we all make. If you can't be right on this, how can I trust you on anything?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I see no hypocrisy. I have good reason to disregard your post (contains erroneous facts of history) while you have no reason to ignore my link (opportunity to correct your erroneous facts of history).

I was debating Truth7t7 about whether the whore of Revelation 17 was the Papacy or Jerusalem, and I showed him the whore "is that great city which REIGNETH over the kings of the Earth" where "reigneth" is present tense. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire which reigned over the kings of the Earth in John's day.

Truth7t7 responded with "Yes, Jerusalem WILL RULE..." which is future tense. See what he did there? He changed the public testimony of Scripture to fit his private interpretation of prophecy, as you've changed public facts about the ECFs testimony regarding Antichrist for the same. Please read the link so you gain understanding about Historicism in history.

What "erroneous facts of history" do you refer to? You didn't even read my post right. As I said, and I'll say once again, when I said the ECFs believed Rome was the Antichrist I carefully explained that they believed that Rome was the 4th Kingdom, or Beast, that *in the end* constitutes the Antichrist system. Are you challenging that fact?

I had a very good reason not to read your link. Nothing you mentioned warranted it. Nothing you said was remotely right regarding your supposition that I'm ignorant on these matters. Links are fine if you provide a snippet of something that may add to what I already knew--you didn't do that. Nobody should spend their day reading "links" offered on discussion forums!

 

[Phoneman777]

Excuses! Of course you're being hypocritical! You have no right to *demand* I read links you provide. I can respond to any part of your message I like--I have that right, without you berating me for not reading your link. Do you think I have the right to send you links and then demand you read them? No.

I don't recall demanding you read anything...you're free to do so or not. However, I will NOT engage in a debate with someone who refuses to do so from a historically accurate position. Therefore, when you gain a such a proper position, let me know and I'm happy to continue the discussion.

You cut me off without reading the whole context of what I was saying. You treated me like the 1st part I was saying was enough to judge me on what you *thought* I said, without caring to read the whole message. It wasn't even a *link!*

I really don't care to talk to people like you who have no shame, who have no sense of right and wrong, who fail to apologize for mistakes we all make. If you can't be right on this, how can I trust you on anything?

My original statement stands. I'm not wasting my time on a discussion with someone who claims to know what Historicism teaches and what the ECFs believed, but proceeds to get everything wrong.

 

[Phoneman777]

What "erroneous facts of history" do you refer to? You didn't even read my post right. As I said, and I'll say once again, when I said the ECFs believed Rome was the Antichrist I carefully explained that they believed that Rome was the 4th Kingdom, or Beast, that *in the end* constitutes the Antichrist system. Are you challenging that fact?

I had a very good reason not to read your link. Nothing you mentioned warranted it. Nothing you said was remotely right regarding your supposition that I'm ignorant on these matters. Links are fine if you provide a snippet of something that may add to what I already knew--you didn't do that. Nobody should spend their day reading "links" offered on discussion forums!

I already told you several times...why do you want to make me keep repeating myself?

You said the ECFs thought the Roman Empire was the Antichrist.
I corrected you by showing they taught the Roman Empire was the Restrainer.
Then, I directed you to this link --

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

-- in order for you to become properly acquainted with Historicism and what the ECFs believed, because you are at the moment improperly acquainted with both.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.​

​

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2​

​

Just as all who are holy are "in Christ", all who have sinned were in Adam--one man. And just as the falling away came to Adam, it must also come to the Last man, whom is Christ including those before and also those after His coming...this is why Jesus is rightly called "the Last Adam." "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual."

It means DEPARTURE, the KJV added Falling Away. What Departs? The Church is gathered unto Christ Jesus in the "very first verse". What is THE SUBJECT? The Thessalonians FEAR that they are in the DOTL, what does that have to do with a departure from the faith? Nothing tbh, but a Departure from this earth means there is no reason to fear being in God's Wrath (DOTL).

Pretty basic, and obvious tbh, but those old men's traditions must be adhered unto. LOL

 

[ScottA]

It means DEPARTURE, the KJV added Falling Away. What Departs? The Church is gathered un to Christ Jesus in the "very first verse". What is THE SUBJECT? The Thessalonians FEAR that they are in the DOTL, what does that have to do with a departure from the faith? Nothing tbh, but Departure from this earth means there is no reason to fear being in God's Wrath (DOTL).

Pretty basic, and obvious tbh, but those old men'e traditions must be adhered unto. LOL

Another basic way to put it would be just to say, "First you live, and then you die." In other words, if you are still alive, you don't have to worry about having missed the rapture (so called) or coming of the Lord.