-- Typical.
Those that say they dislike people like this never give specifics. Just hate.
That are that which they themselves criticize.
John MacArthur: The Rapture Of The Church
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
-- Typical.
Those that say they dislike people like this never give specifics. Just hate.
That are that which they themselves criticize.
revturmoil
New Member
He bad mouths Billy Graham too and takes his comments out of context and say's he denies Christ. That's just what unbelievers need to hear. Most BJU people call Billy Graham a false prophet and demonize Catholicism. In the 60's they wouldn't let blacks into their school and believed that they were the only ones going to heaven!
Want proof?
Hi Kaotic, You get around alot. What was it that you posted about me on my last praise thread on the same forum? Something about being an accuser of the brethren? I don't suppose John MacArthur would consider you to be one of the brethren either, but I'd be pleased to read just one reason why he should? Have you ever had something good to say about anyone? Shoot me a post, send me a link, anything at all that would even suggest that you follow Christ. Edify me, edify the brethren, give a good report, even a ramble on something noble, trustworthy, an encouragement, a word of peace, anything of the Spirit of God. It could even be about Mother Theresa if it will make you feel better. Surely something must make you feel better and might at least make the church feel better, if not edify it. Come on, humor me, give me a reason to lay off. Its hard to kick against the goads.
revturmoil
New Member
I knew this was coming and I knew it would come from you.
I'm not accusing John MacArthur of anything! Look at his vids on you tube. I'm just telling you that he demonizes Catholicism and say's Billy Graham denies Christ!
HE SAID IT! I'm just telling you what he said!
TAKE A LOOK AT YOU TUBE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF! ALL I CAN SAY IS I FIND HIM OFFENSIVE AND HAVE NO USE FOR HIM.
Do you think you're making the church feel better by posting a topic saying that the church of Christ would produce the man of sin?
I see that as blasphemy!
Hi Kaotic, One organization that calls itself a church produced the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, witch hunts, a Pope that held orgies in his own palace at the expense of faithful believers, child molesters that are protected by "church" resources, and any number of vile things. Why wouldn't such a church produce an anti-Christ? That isn't blasphemy, that's factual (not the part about producing an anti-Christ, just the rest of it.) Judas was an apostle, one of the twelve, and yet he was called a "son of perdition". Blasphemy is a term that is only used in reference to God, not to the church, but if you want to call me a blasphemer, well, ouch, that hurts. I'll take my chances with the One who called me and chose me. I don't need your approval, just His. Just the same, the Lord doesn't hold the evil nature of men against them. As a matter of fact, the reason that He came in the flesh to die upon a cross was to redeem evil men from sin and destruction, men just like me and you. If you seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him. Cast aside your idols and your pride and place your trust in Christ alone. There is no other savior, no other mediator between God and man. He desires your love and has no need of a defender, nor does His church. Come to Him in humility and He will by no means cast you out. Turn and live, for evil days are coming and are now here. Judgment begins in the house of God.
revturmoil
New Member
I know the Catholic Church and polital Rome have a horrible past. And the truth is the Reformers were convinced Rome would also emerge as the end time beast since they crucified Christ, persecuted Christian's and Jews, and destroyed the temple. There's no doubt she was a beast of sorts in the time of Christ and during the reformation years. If I could find support for Rome in prophecy I would believe it. But what I see is all the scriptures point to the geographical area of the old Grecian Empire and the Arab World as well as Islam and not Rome, Europe, or Catholicism. There's not one verse of prophecy that points that way in end time prophecy. All scriptures point to an Islamic false prophet and harlot and an Arabic man of sin.
You don't have a leg to stand on if you think you can provide the evidence that the man of sin and his false prophet would come from Rome. I can provide a mountain of evidence for what I believe.
You talk about sexual morality.
Well let me tell you a little abuot the whore of Babylon and the beast it occupies.
Islam is a religion with a false god, a false bible, a false prophet, a false returning messiah, and a true returning man of sin called the dajjal and a prophetic scenario similar to ours.
The jihadist who believe they are doing God's will by commiting abominations like Sept. 11 are enticed with the promise of 70 virgins and mansions in paradise. People who fly planes into buildings get more virgins and mansions than ones who just blow themselves up in a market place. The greater your abomination the greater your reward of virgins and mansions. Babylon the Great is islam. The harlot is an offspring of Babylon the Great. She is probably the symbolic offspring of radical Islam and the jidhadist who will terrorize the world trying to get it to submit to Islam. She's a complicated woman as most are (just kidding) because she's associated with a city. The best place a horlot can do buisness.is a city and I think it's East Jerusalem and the Dome Complex. The harlot holds a cup full of Islamic abominations. Sit's upon means to occupy. This harlot, this religion, occupies a coming ten nation empire meaning it is the religion of the coming ten nation Islamic Empire.
Enough said for now.
Greetings Kaotic,
Thanks for being straight up in your last post. I've never read the entire Quran, but I'd read enough to know that Mohammed was certainly an anti-christ and that by definition. You may be right about "the" anti-christ, and there are certainly individuals in the Arabic world who are making overtures towards a peace treaty or agreement in the middle east. I have heard a good amount of preaching with the same basic premise, but I'm not sure how you get to this from a straight reading of scripture. It's also difficult to imagine the Islamic world giving approval to a covenant of peace with a nation that many of them say should be driven into the sea. If another man rises with the claim to be the Mahdi (?), he would certainly be another anti-christ. I say another, because there was at least one sheik in the past who made this claim and over ran a large portion of the British empire in North Africa. However, Allah is not a new god, but was an ancient god of war in some parts of the arabic world and the anti-christ Mohammed misrepresented the God of Abraham by applying the name of Allah to Him. In the book of the revelation, there is a rider that goes out on a white horse with a bow in his hand and I've heard him portrayed as an Arabic anti-christ, because Ishmael was a hunter (and supposedly hunted with a bow), however I've also heard that the word translated as "bow" actually refers to a banner or perhaps a representation of a covenant. Most evangelical preachers that I've heard, interpret this rider as the anti-christ, though I'm not sure that would be the case either. Most preaching and teaching that I've heard on the topic give reasonable arguments "based upon scripture," but like the pre-tribulation rapture "doctrine" depend upon spiritualizing the meaning of texts or using isogesis rather than exogesis.
In my last post I may have used only one church organization as an example, but that's because my personal experience was drawn from that "church" as a youth. Other institutionalized churches have been guilty of the same types of gross sin, and persecutions are a common phenomenon when religion is mixed with politics. God created us in His image with the intention that we grow in His likeness, but men, in the example of Satan, want God's power, but kept in their own likeness and according to their own will. When I say that the anti-christ can come from the church, I'm speaking of the visible organization, not the body of Christ. The kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet, the kingdom of heaven is like a field of wheat with tares sown among it, the kingdom of heaven is like a shrub that grows into a huge tree in which the birds of the air make their nest, the kingdom of heaven is like bread that is leavened (expanded beyond its normal size with a lot of area not providing any food value.) Would you say that Islam was included in the kingdom of heaven?
I'm not going to try to convince you of anything other than the fact that not everything that calls itself christian is indeed christ-like or even a part of the body of Christ. You must be born again and those that are born again of the Spirit of God are His at His coming, having the Holy Spirit as the seal of ownership upon them and in them. There are people whose intention is to unite the world under their leadership and these same people see Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as their principle enemies. Are you familiar with Luciferian society? The enemies of God and Christ go way back before the birth of Mohammed and I believe that the first scriptural appearance is found in Genesis chapter 3. Mohammed was an anti-christ, but so is the founder of every cult that denies that Jesus came in the flesh, is the only begotten Son of God, rose from the dead, and is in all respects Himself equal to God. Islam is an enemy of God, but so is every religion, philosophy, and vain notion that rises up in opposition to God and His Christ. They are all doctrines of demons, not just Islam. The strength of Islam is in it's confiscation of parts of biblical truth. The best lies always have some degree of truth to them to give them credibility, and any religion that is works based creates a drive to obedience out of the fear of death, sometimes physical and usually spiritual, or the notion of continued suffering. Scientology is a modern attempt to deliver men from fear through a particular kind of pschology with a pseudo scientific framework and a kind of mental conditioning (what some would call brain washing.) It's great appeal is to those who deny the existence of God, yet want to be god-like. Islam's current growth tends to be restricted to the uneducated and unreasoning masses. Christianity's waining in the west is at least in part due to the turning away from a reasonable faith to an unreasoning faith perpetuated by false teachers and a lack of interest in biblical truth. As the arabic world makes gains in education and global communication, the tendency is a move away from Islamic fundamentalism. Radical Islam is fueled by hatred and the natural tendency of men to seek vengeance. Given enough time and a cessation of hostilities, Islam will become as institutionalized and dead as most western Christianity, but then again, Christ could return tonight.
I've read the scriptures quite a few times in their entirety and also in separate studies, but I don't recall ever seeing a verse that identifies the anti-christ as a Muslim, or descendent of Ismael, or something of that nature, so what scripture is it that you believe identifies the anti-christ as a Muslim? Most world religions make the claim to want peace or bring peace. Who in their right mind doesn't desire peace (and I wouldn't consider war profiteers to be in their right minds)? I realize that it makes me sound un-american or anti-american, but from my perspective there has never been a nation with as pervasive an influence in the world since the Roman empire as the U.S.A. (though I did not live in the British empire of it's day, or the Spanish colonial empire of it's day, or the Bavarian empire of it's day, etc., etc., etc. The city that I sometimes work in and around is considered by some as the center of the economic world. I've heard it referred to by one Pastor as Babylon on the Hudson, and I'd have to agree with him. Another city may rise to such prominence, given enough time, but then again Christ could come tonight.
I guess my real question to you is this: What value is there in identifying the anti-christ or the religion that he will institute? The commission of Christ upon His Church is the spreading of the gospel, and this for the adjudication of God's justice upon the earth. He never called for Crusaders or "holy wars." He Himself will bring an end to the rebellion against God, when He returns in glory. The battle is the Lords and so is the victory. All that He has required of us is faithfulness to the end. Isn't this what the scripture teaches?
revturmoil
New Member
If there were no value in identifying him then prophecy would never have been prophecy written about him. When we are in tribulation, some will still be waiting for a pre-trib rapture so to them the man of sin has not yet been revealed. Some like you are expecting a Pope and European and most are expecting a one world government, monetary system, and religion and a peace treaty with Israel and a temple to be rebuilt. So when none of this comes to pass and the earth is in tribulation, and the anti-christ is here and he doesn't fulfill any of the things I just mentioned...UH! Get my point!
It's not up to us to determine who in the church is or is not part of the body of Christ and the world doesn't differentiate between the two.
Show me a verse that implies that the man of sin would come from within the church! Just one!
And show me one that implies that Rome would produce the men of sin in the last days in any way!
The bow is symbolic of several things and an entire thread of it's own. I believe it's symbolic of the decendents of Ishmael and evil conquest and designs.
I give credit to the author for this page because I don't know who he is.
It's called Ishmael origin of Hate.
With Imperialistic Islam, though collateral damage frequently kills their own, the focus of their attacks are consistently on non-Islamic peoples - 'infidels,' as defined by the Qur'an.
To better understand the hate fueling modern day Islam, one must first look back to its roots. From Ishmael, whose birthright was denied, to Esau and Jacob - rivaling twins, the seed of hate was sewn.
What evolved thereafter was a bitter, jealousy that has been passed down to every Arab generation since. By the 7th century, this ancient hatred made its way into the heart and mind of a common-criminal named Mohammed - an Arab and descendant of Ishmael, who founded a religion and used it to justify his countless, criminal acts of murder.
Both the western media and the Arab press routinely offer biased, politicized answers to what they believe drives this Islamic hatred for the west. From 'US support for Israel' to 'US secularism,' we've heard them all, and despite attempts to justify their inhumane acts, the truth is, Muslims have been committing terrorist acts for some 1,300 years - long before 'western culturalism' or 'US support for Israel' ever existed. And despite such history, we continue to ignorantly look elsewhere for the reasons.
From the early days of Islam to today's globally televised beheadings, Muslims are simply acting-out what Mohammed believed, and what the Qur'an teaches. And when Qur'anic Law was given the opportunity to govern, its violent, 7th century intolerance was seen through the eyes of Afghanistan's Taliban - a view of converting and uniting the Arab world under Islamic Law by sword first, and everyone else second.
What truly is at the heart of the Islamists hatred today is no different than that which fueled Mohammed's hatred as he wrote the Qur'an. It is the belief and goal of a one-world, global Islamic empire run by Qur'anic Law whereby everyone must, in the end, convert to their fundamentalist ideology or face beheading. The hatred that fuels this theocracy dates back to Ishmael and his son-in-law Esau, and from there, compounded to form the foundations of Islamicism which is the reason why most of the world conflicts today involve Muslims.
The Origins of Hatred
Ishmael and Isaac;
In 1910 bc, Abraham's wife, Sarah, frustrated with her inability to have a child and impatient with God's timing, asked Abraham to give her a child through their Egyptian maidservant 'Hagar'.
Gen 16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name [was] Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Hagar, servant that she was, submitted to being used this way. But her pregnancy gave birth to strong feelings of superiority toward Sarah. During Hagar's pregnancy, friction began to develop between Sarah and Hagar and when Hagar could no longer endure it, she fled into the desert. There God instructed her to return to Sarah;
Gen 16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
Into this tense, atmosphere Ishmael was born and for 13 years Abraham thought Ishmael's birth had fulfilled God's promise (Ishmael would become the progenitor of today's Arab world - the Arabs are an Ishmaelite race).
When Abraham reached 99 years of age, God appeared to him and announced that his wife Sarah would bear him a son and that they would call him Isaac. And it would be through Isaac that God would establish His covenant (Isaac became the father of the Israelites). Abraham struggled with this because he loved Ishmael dearly and desired that he be his heir and receive the birthright blessings.
Gen 17:18 O that Ishmael might live before thee!..
But the birthright was denied to Ishmael.
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall [a child] be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him.
After the birth of Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael were sent away at Sarah's insistence,
Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac.
Sarah was adamant that Ishmael should not inherit along with Isaac. God instructed Abraham to do as Sarah desired, but he reassured Abraham that,
Gen 21:13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he [is] thy seed.
But God also knew what kind of people Ishmael's descendants would be when He spoke prophetically to Hagar saying,
Genesis 16:12 And he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren
[literally, "he shall defy all his kinsmen"]."
Genesis 25:18 His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers.
And to this day Arab hands have "lived in hostility toward all their brothers.."
Ishmael was not a spirit of implacable hatred and murder against Isaac, but rather one of envy and rivalry. Ishmael's position in the family had been radically altered by Isaac's birth. This had wounded his proud spirit, and provoked him into a jealousy. And time has not softened this spirit of envy either. Attitudes and historical perspectives are often transmitted from father to son and from generation to generation. The effects of the domestic rivalry in the household of Abraham are still being felt to this day in the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict.
In time, Ishmael became the father of 12 sons (his descendants are called Ishmaelites) whose names are recorded in Genesis 25:13-16. Ishmael also had a daughter named Mahalath (Bashemath), who would later marry his half-brother Isaac's eldest son, Esau4 (Esau's descendants were known as Edomites).
Ishmalites were marauding nomads who traded with Egypt (Jacob's son Joseph would later be sold by his brothers to a passing band of Ishmaelites - Genesis 37:25-28). They led an untamed existence in the deserts south and east of Canaan and were known for their wandering, lawlessness, and freebooting lifestyle. Ishmael died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17) and just as God had promised, his 12 sons grew into "a great nation" with he as clearly the preeminent forefather of the Arab world (The Arab peoples today number over 140 million and are destined to play a significant role in the development of prophetic events).
The relationship between the Ishmaelite Arabs and the Biblical Israelites is thus clear: Ishmael was the elder half-brother of Isaac, son of Abraham, by way of Hagar, who settled in central and northern Arabia. Isaac in turn, had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. From Jacob - later renamed Israel - descended the Jews and the other tribes of Israel.
The Israelis and the Arabs are cousins!
Hi Kaotic,
I need to take some time to read through your entire post and check your references, but I need to tell you up front with regard to your first statement, that the reason God gave us prophecy was to prove that His word really is His word, not so that we could act upon it in any other way than repentance. You may not accept such a notion, but that doesn't make it less true. The purpose of scripture is to show us our relationship to our Sovereign Lord, to make us see our need for salvation, and to introduce us to the only One that can save us. History is given as example and for the revelation of Jesus Christ. Prophecy was often pointless to those who originally received it, but the purpose was to point to Christ and the redemption of man. The fact that events were foretold and then verified by history is as much a proof of the validity of God's word as the empty tomb. God's purpose is eternal redemption, not carnal advancement.
Maybe I'll have more to say after perusing your comments, but at first glance all I saw were assertions, not arguments, and that's all that I've given you here.
Hello again Kaotic, I had a little more time to read your post, but I run into a problem immediately when you quote from someone's isogetical study "the origin of hate." If you're unfamiliar with the terms isogesis and exegesis, the first refers to the practice of superimposing your own ideas over the scripture to give them an interpretation that relies on your preconceptions. Such a practice is the principle source of heresy, but is quite common. The latter practice, exegesis, is allowing the scripture to speak for itself, drawing understanding from it, rather than applying meaning to it. The passages from Genesis suggest an evil attitude on the part of Ishmael, and new testament scripture tells us that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, but this is in the context of the bondwoman and the free woman being types of the two covenants of law and of grace respectively. If Ishmael did indeed hate his brother Isaac, he wouldn't have been the first. If that paper had been intended as a logical argument you would expect a tautology as a result and given the whole body of scripture as axiomatic, you have to understand that the very first man born on Earth murdered his brother, which I believe we'd have to identify as an act of hatred. Our Lord identifies Satan as being a murderer from the start, so it appears that the origin of hate was with Satan and long before the births of Isaac and Ishmael.You asked for a single verse that indicates that the anti-christ would come from the Church, but I'll have to use a minimum of 4 to prove my point, though this would by no means be exhaustive.Simon Peter identifies himself and the intended recipients of his 2nd epistle in its 1st verse: Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1This is our first axiom, that the Apostle Peter, who some would call the 1st Pope, wrote his epistle to the Church.In the 2nd chapter of that epistle, Peter discusses false teachers among those he addresses, i.e. the Church: 2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does[a] not slumber. 2 Peter 2:2-3This passage describes false teachers among the church, just as there were false prophets among the Israelites who would bring in destructive ways and heresies including denying the Lord who bought them (Jesus Christ). Our 2nd axiom would be : there are false teachers within the church (in fellowship with the church as the rest of the passage describes) and these will go as far as denying Jesus Christ.The Apostle John, in his first epistle spends a good amount of time identifying the spirit of anti-christ and those who could be called anti-Christs, but I'm only presenting a single defining concept in 2 contiguous verses: 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:22-23Our third axiom would be: An anti-Christ is a person that denies that Jesus is Christ (and in John's mind this included the concept of the Christ being equal to God as we find in John's gospel)Given these 3 axioms, false teachers among those he addressed in his 2nd epistle, the church, deny Jesus Christ (the Lord who bought them) and since those that deny Jesus Christ are defined as anti-Christ, there are anti-Christs which are among (seen with) the Church.This argument doesn't prove that the one referred to as the man of sin will come from some specific denomination, but that he could come from some denomination, not as a true believer, but as a deceiver. These few verses don't stand alone. You also said that it isn't our job to determine who is truly of the church and who isn't, but the shepherds of the church, those called by God to care for the sheep, are given the responsibility of overseeing church discipline and ejecting those who don't behave in a manner in accord with the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and confronting those false teachers among the church with sound doctrine and the power entrusted to them by Christ and through His word. In the same epistle quoted earlier, John gave the imperative: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 This wasn't given to just Pastors and elders, but to the Church as a whole. He clearly didn't mean to ask questions of invisible spirits, but to test those making profession of knowledge in the ways of God (the Bible didn't exist yet in its current form and much of the teaching in the early church was through word of mouth and repetition.)I don't really expect to convince you with my little argument, but I wanted to demonstrate a structured logical argument for anyone else who might be reading these posts, and I've given actual biblical points and teaching to defend my understanding rather than attempting to prove a point by forcing my opinion upon the text.
I need to take some time to read through your entire post and check your references, but I need to tell you up front with regard to your first statement, that the reason God gave us prophecy was to prove that His word really is His word, not so that we could act upon it in any other way than repentance. You may not accept such a notion, but that doesn't make it less true. The purpose of scripture is to show us our relationship to our Sovereign Lord, to make us see our need for salvation, and to introduce us to the only One that can save us. History is given as example and for the revelation of Jesus Christ. Prophecy was often pointless to those who originally received it, but the purpose was to point to Christ and the redemption of man. The fact that events were foretold and then verified by history is as much a proof of the validity of God's word as the empty tomb. God's purpose is eternal redemption, not carnal advancement.
Maybe I'll have more to say after perusing your comments, but at first glance all I saw were assertions, not arguments, and that's all that I've given you here.
Hello again Kaotic, I had a little more time to read your post, but I run into a problem immediately when you quote from someone's isogetical study "the origin of hate." If you're unfamiliar with the terms isogesis and exegesis, the first refers to the practice of superimposing your own ideas over the scripture to give them an interpretation that relies on your preconceptions. Such a practice is the principle source of heresy, but is quite common. The latter practice, exegesis, is allowing the scripture to speak for itself, drawing understanding from it, rather than applying meaning to it. The passages from Genesis suggest an evil attitude on the part of Ishmael, and new testament scripture tells us that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, but this is in the context of the bondwoman and the free woman being types of the two covenants of law and of grace respectively. If Ishmael did indeed hate his brother Isaac, he wouldn't have been the first. If that paper had been intended as a logical argument you would expect a tautology as a result and given the whole body of scripture as axiomatic, you have to understand that the very first man born on Earth murdered his brother, which I believe we'd have to identify as an act of hatred. Our Lord identifies Satan as being a murderer from the start, so it appears that the origin of hate was with Satan and long before the births of Isaac and Ishmael.You asked for a single verse that indicates that the anti-christ would come from the Church, but I'll have to use a minimum of 4 to prove my point, though this would by no means be exhaustive.Simon Peter identifies himself and the intended recipients of his 2nd epistle in its 1st verse: Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1This is our first axiom, that the Apostle Peter, who some would call the 1st Pope, wrote his epistle to the Church.In the 2nd chapter of that epistle, Peter discusses false teachers among those he addresses, i.e. the Church: 2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does[a] not slumber. 2 Peter 2:2-3This passage describes false teachers among the church, just as there were false prophets among the Israelites who would bring in destructive ways and heresies including denying the Lord who bought them (Jesus Christ). Our 2nd axiom would be : there are false teachers within the church (in fellowship with the church as the rest of the passage describes) and these will go as far as denying Jesus Christ.The Apostle John, in his first epistle spends a good amount of time identifying the spirit of anti-christ and those who could be called anti-Christs, but I'm only presenting a single defining concept in 2 contiguous verses: 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:22-23Our third axiom would be: An anti-Christ is a person that denies that Jesus is Christ (and in John's mind this included the concept of the Christ being equal to God as we find in John's gospel)Given these 3 axioms, false teachers among those he addressed in his 2nd epistle, the church, deny Jesus Christ (the Lord who bought them) and since those that deny Jesus Christ are defined as anti-Christ, there are anti-Christs which are among (seen with) the Church.This argument doesn't prove that the one referred to as the man of sin will come from some specific denomination, but that he could come from some denomination, not as a true believer, but as a deceiver. These few verses don't stand alone. You also said that it isn't our job to determine who is truly of the church and who isn't, but the shepherds of the church, those called by God to care for the sheep, are given the responsibility of overseeing church discipline and ejecting those who don't behave in a manner in accord with the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and confronting those false teachers among the church with sound doctrine and the power entrusted to them by Christ and through His word. In the same epistle quoted earlier, John gave the imperative: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 This wasn't given to just Pastors and elders, but to the Church as a whole. He clearly didn't mean to ask questions of invisible spirits, but to test those making profession of knowledge in the ways of God (the Bible didn't exist yet in its current form and much of the teaching in the early church was through word of mouth and repetition.)I don't really expect to convince you with my little argument, but I wanted to demonstrate a structured logical argument for anyone else who might be reading these posts, and I've given actual biblical points and teaching to defend my understanding rather than attempting to prove a point by forcing my opinion upon the text.
Veteran - .......... What do you call the event when the alive saints are changed and caught up to meet the Lord ???
There is no rapture in scripture. The rapture theory is a lie and always has been.
Here read about it in this thread.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/15958-what-about-the-rapture/#entry151369
.
Here read about it in this thread.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/15958-what-about-the-rapture/#entry151369
.
I use the terminology that Apostle Paul used, which the KJV translators gave in English, "changed", "caught up", or "gathering together" (Greek episunagoge in 2 Thess.2:1).
The word 'rapture' is not in either the Greek NT manuscripts, nor the KJV English. It's a word from Latin 'raptus'. It is the Latin equivalent to the Greek word 'harpazo' in the NT manuscripts, which is translated to "caught up" in the KJV English.
So trying to make this a debate about the word 'rapture' is not even close to the point of why a Pre-trib Rapture is false and not written in God's Word. The Pre-trib Rapture idea is false because of the wrong timing assignment of a Pre-tribulational gathering to Christ. Jesus told us in Matt.24 and Mark 13 that He will gather us AFTER... the "great tribulation" He mentioned, and all Scriptures in God's Word about that event agree with what He said.
Thank you Veteran. I think we are closer to being on the same page than we realize.
I would also call it .... "changed", "caught up", or "gathering together"
Of course we differ on the timing of it , and that is a healthy debate because it sort of mentally prepares us for both pre-wrath and post-wrath . Its good to understand both possibilities and be somewhat prepared.
Through the years guys like me loosely refer to it as "rapture" , but in the end we are all talking about the day (moment) when living christians are changed in a twinkle to meet the Lord in the air.
I feel it is fair game to debate the terminology and the timing ..... but we must also acknowledge we do believe in the same event .... ("changed", "caught up", or "gathering together").
- Dec 31, 2010
- 5,184
- 2,388
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.- Matthew 24:42
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. - 1 Thess 5:1-3
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. - Acts 1:7
We can guess and speculate (as I have done) the times and the seasons. But when it is all said in done such things are in the Fathers hands and not ours. Therefore it pays to be ready for our Lord's coming to happen at any moment and in any hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO8Y0vvWT0
But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. - 1 Thess 5:1-3
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. - Acts 1:7
We can guess and speculate (as I have done) the times and the seasons. But when it is all said in done such things are in the Fathers hands and not ours. Therefore it pays to be ready for our Lord's coming to happen at any moment and in any hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO8Y0vvWT0
You were warned and told what to do. But just like before you killed Gods witnesses and laid their dead bodies in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Everyone will see the wrath of God. For those of faith it is nothing more than a test. But for those who savor the lies of men and falsehood it is wrath. The world and all who serve it and trust in it will fall and never rise again.
Those who are trusting in the lies of man are the ones who will kill the Lord's two witnesses just like they crucified the Lord. The arena has shifted to the Church where the rebels are ever willing and able to shed innocent blood for the cause of their gospel for sale.
7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
We do not all believe in the same 'event' that God's Word declares as the gathering to Christ, and that's another problem. Most on the Pre-trib Rapture idea refuse to believe Paul in 1 Cor.15 was talking about the time that Christ comes to gather His Church, but instead as a 3rd coming to establish His reign, the Church already having been taken out prior to that. Yet Paul's idea of the change at a twinkling of an eye is exactly the same event and timing of 1 Thess.4:15-17 and Matt.24:29-31.
Similar threads
