Hi Dani, No disrespect intended, but I believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Yes, for believers some of what you say is true in a "spiritual sense" but I believe there will be an actual physical fulfillment as well.
Ten Reasons I Do not Believe There Will Be "an Antichrist"
- Thread starter Wormwood
- 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!
Trekson,
The only problem is that the NT does not interpret the OT that way. We should follow the way the inspired writers interpreted the OT in my opinion.
The only problem is that the NT does not interpret the OT that way. We should follow the way the inspired writers interpreted the OT in my opinion.
Sure Trekson,
Here are three examples (I can provide many more if you would like me to). NT writers almost always take OT texts that pointed to Israel or events in Israel's history as being types and shadows to help people see God's work in Christ. I encourage you to look up the OT texts or titles that are quoted in these NT passages and see how the OT author uses them. The NT author has used these passages to point to a spiritual/greater fulfillment than what they originally pointed toward. The cross is also full of such spiritual interpretation as quotations about the Passover and sacrifice are reinterpreted to point to the death of Jesus (not one of his bones will be broken, etc.). These verses were originally pointing to something in the old covenant associated with Israel and are given new meaning and significance in light of Christ's parousia.
Hi Wormwood, Of course I'm aware of the typologies used in the OT. I even wrote an article here on the typology of the feasts of Israel and another one on the spiritual promises to Israel that came to their fruition w/ the NT church, to refute the idea of replacement theology.
The problem is that Dani's Zech. 14 example was in no manner fulfilled by Christ at his first advent. That is seeing a "spiritual" fulfillment when you should be looking for an "actual" fulfillment.
Let's look at your examples: Galatians, Yes this is typology.
Matt. No, it was literally and physically fulfilled.
Romans. No. It is literally still being fulfilled as we speak.
The solution then is to "rightly divide the word of truth". Yes, there are typologies in the OT but not everything prophetic is a typology. Most of the prophecies concerning Christ were spiritual in nature yet they were literally and physically fulfilled. Since that was the case with His first coming, why would it be any different w/ His second coming? An argument could be given that Antiochus Eppiphanes is a "type" for the future anti-christ. Regarding Dan. 11, I believe the account of A.E. ends w/ vs. 20 and vs. 21 to the end are prophecies concerning the future a/c. I agree that now w/ hindsight and the revelation of the HS we can see some typologies from the OT and their "spiritual" fulfillment but also not everything that appears "spiritually fulfilled" will be lacking in a literal, physical fulfillment as well.
The problem is that Dani's Zech. 14 example was in no manner fulfilled by Christ at his first advent. That is seeing a "spiritual" fulfillment when you should be looking for an "actual" fulfillment.
Let's look at your examples: Galatians, Yes this is typology.
Matt. No, it was literally and physically fulfilled.
Romans. No. It is literally still being fulfilled as we speak.
The solution then is to "rightly divide the word of truth". Yes, there are typologies in the OT but not everything prophetic is a typology. Most of the prophecies concerning Christ were spiritual in nature yet they were literally and physically fulfilled. Since that was the case with His first coming, why would it be any different w/ His second coming? An argument could be given that Antiochus Eppiphanes is a "type" for the future anti-christ. Regarding Dan. 11, I believe the account of A.E. ends w/ vs. 20 and vs. 21 to the end are prophecies concerning the future a/c. I agree that now w/ hindsight and the revelation of the HS we can see some typologies from the OT and their "spiritual" fulfillment but also not everything that appears "spiritually fulfilled" will be lacking in a literal, physical fulfillment as well.
Well Trekson I would strongly disagree. Lets take a look at Matthew's quotation from Hosea 11:1:
Lets look at the other passage in Hosea 2:
If you look at the context, this is clearly talking about God restoring Israel. The people God had declared to be "not my people" would be restored and called his people again. Paul and Peter both use this verse to point to the Gentiles being brought into the church. The idea is very clear. Just as God was able to declare a people who were no longer his people and cast away from the land to be designated as "his people" again (Israel) and restored to their land, so he is able to make that same declaration about Gentiles through faith in Christ. Being "his people" now is not about flesh, but faith in Christ. There are no distinctions between Jew or Gentile. The only thing that matters is faith in Christ. This is how Paul concludes chapter 9 to drive home this very point:
Is this passage talking about Jesus or a future Messiah? Absolutely not. It is talking about Israel and how God delivered them from slavery in Egypt because of His love. There is nothing here in this verse or in the context that would suggest the passage is talking about Jesus or a future Messiah. However, the Holy Spirit guided Matthew to see this passage as finding its fulfillment in Jesus. Jesus is true Israel (Gal 3:16). Jesus is the true temple (John 2:19). Jesus is the manna (John 6:33). Jesus is rock in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4). Jesus the vine (John 15:1). We could go on and on. The point is here that Matthew uses a text clearly talking about Israel and applies it to Christ. Because Israel is merely a foreshadowing of Christ. The sacrifices were merely a foreshadowing of the one true sacrifice. All of the Law and Prophets point to Jesus (not just some). I think this verse in Matthew makes it clear that this is how the inspired author saw Christ and what he represented.
Lets look at the other passage in Hosea 2:
If you look at the context, this is clearly talking about God restoring Israel. The people God had declared to be "not my people" would be restored and called his people again. Paul and Peter both use this verse to point to the Gentiles being brought into the church. The idea is very clear. Just as God was able to declare a people who were no longer his people and cast away from the land to be designated as "his people" again (Israel) and restored to their land, so he is able to make that same declaration about Gentiles through faith in Christ. Being "his people" now is not about flesh, but faith in Christ. There are no distinctions between Jew or Gentile. The only thing that matters is faith in Christ. This is how Paul concludes chapter 9 to drive home this very point:
Righteousness and the designation of being "God's people" now ONLY relates to a persons faith in Christ...and nothing else!
Hi Wormwood, Your words: "Because Israel is merely a foreshadowing of Christ. The sacrifices were merely a foreshadowing of the one true sacrifice. All of the Law and Prophets point to Jesus (not just some). I think this verse in Matthew makes it clear that this is how the inspired author saw Christ and what he represented."
Maybe some aspects of the individuals books of the Law and Prophets point to Christ but certainly not every word, chapter or even section. There are many prophecies about Christ which have no typological aspects to them at all. They are simply fulfilled as written. Not every prophecy is about Christ. Many dealt w/ Israel (the nation) and the punishments that they were to receive and their future as a nation once restored to Christ.
Maybe some aspects of the individuals books of the Law and Prophets point to Christ but certainly not every word, chapter or even section. There are many prophecies about Christ which have no typological aspects to them at all. They are simply fulfilled as written. Not every prophecy is about Christ. Many dealt w/ Israel (the nation) and the punishments that they were to receive and their future as a nation once restored to Christ.
Yes, I agree that not every word in the OT refers to Jesus. However, my point is that God's entire function in using Israel was ultimately to point people to Jesus and to foreshadow the coming of the Savior. Your hermeneutics essentially says that some stuff was about Jesus, but some future stuff really was all about Israel. My point is that Israel's entire function as a whole was to usher in the Christ and foreshadow his work! Dispensationalism does complete violence to this concept and amounts to little more than flesh-focused Judaizing.
The NT writers and Jesus made it clear that the OT was for the purpose of pointing people to the Savior. It wasn't just a part of its purpose...it is THE purpose. So much so that Paul saw circumcision and all the elements of the OT law as teaching tools to understand faith and how that faith finds its culmination in Christ.
Hi Wormwood, Your words: "Your hermeneutics essentially says that some stuff was about Jesus, but some future stuff really was all about Israel. My point is that Israel's entire function as a whole was to usher in the Christ and foreshadow his work! Dispensationalism does complete violence to this concept and amounts to little more than flesh-focused Judaizing."
I would word my beliefs a little differently. I would say that the function of Israel was two-fold. One, to fulfill the covenant God made w/ Abraham. Gen. 22:18 - "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." This is speaking of Christ, of course. and Two, as examples: 1 Cor. 10:1-11 - "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
Some of these also include examples of faith such as Heb. 11 describes.
I am a far cry from your typical dispensationalist and the reality is that because they were used to "usher" in the Messiah, God made some promises to them will last for forever.
Gen. 17:7 - "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
Gen. 13:15 - "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever."
These promises will not see their fulfillment in the church. They are for the nation of Israel and God keeps His promises. The church will have no need of land as our abode will be in heaven. Ez. 47 & 48 even explains how this land will be divvied up and it measures in square miles to be far larger than Israel ever was. God is more than capable of dealing w/ Israel and the church at the same time. It just boils down to a promise made by God will be a promise kept.
I would word my beliefs a little differently. I would say that the function of Israel was two-fold. One, to fulfill the covenant God made w/ Abraham. Gen. 22:18 - "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." This is speaking of Christ, of course. and Two, as examples: 1 Cor. 10:1-11 - "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
Some of these also include examples of faith such as Heb. 11 describes.
I am a far cry from your typical dispensationalist and the reality is that because they were used to "usher" in the Messiah, God made some promises to them will last for forever.
Gen. 17:7 - "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
Gen. 13:15 - "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever."
These promises will not see their fulfillment in the church. They are for the nation of Israel and God keeps His promises. The church will have no need of land as our abode will be in heaven. Ez. 47 & 48 even explains how this land will be divvied up and it measures in square miles to be far larger than Israel ever was. God is more than capable of dealing w/ Israel and the church at the same time. It just boils down to a promise made by God will be a promise kept.
Well I disagree. The everlasting covenant is the one established by Christ's blood and the one that was intended from "before the foundations of the world." The first covenant was merely a type and shadow of the covenant established by Christ. Hebrews makes it clear that the first covenant has "passed away." The eternal covenant, eternal throne, eternal land, and eternal city is the one whose architect and builder is God. I think both Hebrews and Galatians make it clear that the real promise of God is about a heavenly Jerusalem, not an earthly one.
I agree that the acts of Israel were recorded for our edification. However, this is a far cry from saying that Israel itself has a separate and distinct plan or is of special distinction now after the resurrection. Paul makes it very clear that everyone, both Jew and Gentile, stands and falls by faith alone. There is one plan and one covenant now. It is the plan and purpose of God through the blood of Jesus. To say that there is still another covenant and another plan is an attack on the sufficiency of the cross of Christ.
I agree that the acts of Israel were recorded for our edification. However, this is a far cry from saying that Israel itself has a separate and distinct plan or is of special distinction now after the resurrection. Paul makes it very clear that everyone, both Jew and Gentile, stands and falls by faith alone. There is one plan and one covenant now. It is the plan and purpose of God through the blood of Jesus. To say that there is still another covenant and another plan is an attack on the sufficiency of the cross of Christ.
http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Antichrist
I was going to type out most of whats on this website, but decided its much easier to copy and paste the link. The website is copyrightednso I just put the link. the info found on this site goes into more detail than i would have toward the end.
Enjoy.
I was going to type out most of whats on this website, but decided its much easier to copy and paste the link. The website is copyrightednso I just put the link. the info found on this site goes into more detail than i would have toward the end.
Enjoy.
Hi Wormwood, I would tend to agree with your assessment if there were only one covenant, but there are more than one.
The old or Sinaitic covenant of Ex. 19:5 - "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine."
Now this covenant with the following Law and Ordinances, made with the nation of Israel, is what is replaced by the New Covenant as recorded in Heb.8:8-12 - "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."
However, only part of this new covenant is in effect at the moment. The latter two vss. (11-12) will not be fulfilled until the beginning of the millennium. Remember, this covenant was only for Israel at first, but because of their rejection of Christ, we gentiles have been given the opportunity to be adopted into this new covenant as well. The house of Israel of vs. 10 will consist of the 144,000 plus who will enter the millennium as living, breathing persons. It's only the living, Christ will need to rule with a "rod of iron". The rest of the raptured/resurrected church/Israel won't need to be ruled in that manner. Here are some of the other covenants which the new covenant does NOT override.
The Abramic Covenant - Gen. 13:15 - "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." AND Gen. 15:18-21 - "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."
The aforementioned covenant was re-ratified with Isaac. Gen. 26:3-5 - "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my law."
God reconfirmed this land covenant again w/ Jacob. Gen. 28:13 - "And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."
There is also the covenant God made w/ David. Ps.89:3-4 - "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations."
This is speaking of more than Christ.
God adds to this covenant in Ps. 89:27-37 - "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven."
Again, this is not speaking only of Christ, but his literal earthly line as well.
The old or Sinaitic covenant of Ex. 19:5 - "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine."
Now this covenant with the following Law and Ordinances, made with the nation of Israel, is what is replaced by the New Covenant as recorded in Heb.8:8-12 - "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."
However, only part of this new covenant is in effect at the moment. The latter two vss. (11-12) will not be fulfilled until the beginning of the millennium. Remember, this covenant was only for Israel at first, but because of their rejection of Christ, we gentiles have been given the opportunity to be adopted into this new covenant as well. The house of Israel of vs. 10 will consist of the 144,000 plus who will enter the millennium as living, breathing persons. It's only the living, Christ will need to rule with a "rod of iron". The rest of the raptured/resurrected church/Israel won't need to be ruled in that manner. Here are some of the other covenants which the new covenant does NOT override.
The Abramic Covenant - Gen. 13:15 - "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." AND Gen. 15:18-21 - "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."
The aforementioned covenant was re-ratified with Isaac. Gen. 26:3-5 - "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my law."
God reconfirmed this land covenant again w/ Jacob. Gen. 28:13 - "And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."
There is also the covenant God made w/ David. Ps.89:3-4 - "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations."
This is speaking of more than Christ.
God adds to this covenant in Ps. 89:27-37 - "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven."
Again, this is not speaking only of Christ, but his literal earthly line as well.
Jericho,
Thanks for posting the article. Obviously, I disagree. First, 1 John defines "the antichrist" very clearly in this context. John writes, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22, ESV) Thus, "the antichrist" is any individual who "denies the Father and the Son." The author is way off base in that he/she says that "the Greek indicates" that all who deny Jesus is the Christ are "types of the future Antichrist." What? The Greek indicates no such thing! The English translates the Greek just fine here and nothing here indicates anything about "types" of some future Antichrist figure. This is being imposed on the text.
The author references 1 John 4:2. This is a powerful text that proves my point, and I am amazed at how he twists it around to make it say the opposite of what it is saying. The coming "Antichrist" and the "spirit of the Antichrist" are one and the same. John is indicating that the enemy who opposes the truth that Jesus is the Christ is now present in the world. His spirit is at work through these antichrists...revealing that the "Antichrist" has come. Yet the author says that the point of John is that "the Antichrist had not yet arrived." This is exactly backwards. John is saying that the "Antichrist" has been revealed through the work of antichrists in the world. In fact, the Greek says,
καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is "the thing of the antichrist." Thing here is implied...it literally says, "and this is the of the antichrist." John is saying the opposite of what this author is implying. He is not pointing to a future event, but the reality of that which is revealing the presence of the antichrist among us today.
I don't have time to address everything in this person's article. If you think something is specifically noteworthy, let me know the verse he references and I will address those particular comments.
Trekson,
I agree that there have been two covenants. However, the Bible is very clear that the first passed away to make room for the second. God does not have two covenants going at the same time. If this were the case than Christ's sacrifice is insufficient for Jews to provide them with cleansing and purity. After all, if you are going to claim they are under the first covenant, than the second doesn't apply to them, right? How can they be justified by grace through the cross if they are under the first covenant rather than the second? I also agree that God never broke his covenant with Israel. The point is that Israel could not keep the first covenant which is why the second was made. Finally, Galatians makes it clear that the promises made to Abraham's seed was in reference to Christ, not Israel. Paul says that Scripture refers to Abraham's seed, not seeds. Seed, singular, refers to Christ and thus the promises and blessings pointed to Christ..not Israel.
Thanks for posting the article. Obviously, I disagree. First, 1 John defines "the antichrist" very clearly in this context. John writes, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22, ESV) Thus, "the antichrist" is any individual who "denies the Father and the Son." The author is way off base in that he/she says that "the Greek indicates" that all who deny Jesus is the Christ are "types of the future Antichrist." What? The Greek indicates no such thing! The English translates the Greek just fine here and nothing here indicates anything about "types" of some future Antichrist figure. This is being imposed on the text.
The author references 1 John 4:2. This is a powerful text that proves my point, and I am amazed at how he twists it around to make it say the opposite of what it is saying. The coming "Antichrist" and the "spirit of the Antichrist" are one and the same. John is indicating that the enemy who opposes the truth that Jesus is the Christ is now present in the world. His spirit is at work through these antichrists...revealing that the "Antichrist" has come. Yet the author says that the point of John is that "the Antichrist had not yet arrived." This is exactly backwards. John is saying that the "Antichrist" has been revealed through the work of antichrists in the world. In fact, the Greek says,
καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is "the thing of the antichrist." Thing here is implied...it literally says, "and this is the of the antichrist." John is saying the opposite of what this author is implying. He is not pointing to a future event, but the reality of that which is revealing the presence of the antichrist among us today.
I don't have time to address everything in this person's article. If you think something is specifically noteworthy, let me know the verse he references and I will address those particular comments.
Trekson,
I agree that there have been two covenants. However, the Bible is very clear that the first passed away to make room for the second. God does not have two covenants going at the same time. If this were the case than Christ's sacrifice is insufficient for Jews to provide them with cleansing and purity. After all, if you are going to claim they are under the first covenant, than the second doesn't apply to them, right? How can they be justified by grace through the cross if they are under the first covenant rather than the second? I also agree that God never broke his covenant with Israel. The point is that Israel could not keep the first covenant which is why the second was made. Finally, Galatians makes it clear that the promises made to Abraham's seed was in reference to Christ, not Israel. Paul says that Scripture refers to Abraham's seed, not seeds. Seed, singular, refers to Christ and thus the promises and blessings pointed to Christ..not Israel.
Hi Wormwood, The word 'seeds" is never used in the bible as a description of generations only as plant starters. The word "seed" referring to generations is BOTH singular and plural similar to deer, moose and sheep. Believing that every time it is used in a prophecy, it is referencing Christ just isn't good exegesis.
Trekson,
Your problem is with the interpretation of the Apostle Paul, not me.
Remember, we are dealing with Greek and Hebrew here. So the plural form of the English "seed" is irrelevant. The Greek words here, if Paul is using the Septuagint, are
σπέρμασιν and σπέρματί. The latter is a singular form and Paul is saying that the singular form is used in the Scriptures which shows it is pointing to Christ rather than Israel. Again, if you think this is errant, than you need to take that up with the Holy Spirit who inspired the text. As I said before, we need to interpret our OT understanding in the manner of the NT inspired authors. Dispensational views reject inspired interpretation by NT authors of the OT. THese are issues that Paul was willing to die over. I think you should reread the NT interpretations of the OT and reconsider your position on this important matter.
Your problem is with the interpretation of the Apostle Paul, not me.
Notice how Paul speaks of the "promises" made to Abraham. He doesn't just have one particular promise in mind, but all of the promises God made to Abraham were ultimately about Christ. I think Paul is very clear here. Paul even points to circumcision being a sign of faith, not a work of righteousness. Circumcision was mandated in the first covenant, but Paul shows how even these mandates merely pointed to Christ and to continue to be circumcised in obedience to law was to act in opposition to grace and Gods new work in Christ. To reject this work was to reject God....which is ridiculous if God has two covenants working simultaneously. Paul wrote to both Jews and Gentiles on this issue. There is NO sense in Paul that God had different plans for Jews and Gentiles. Rather, Paul is adamant that God didn't, which is largely why he was hated so much by the Jewish people.
Remember, we are dealing with Greek and Hebrew here. So the plural form of the English "seed" is irrelevant. The Greek words here, if Paul is using the Septuagint, are
σπέρμασιν and σπέρματί. The latter is a singular form and Paul is saying that the singular form is used in the Scriptures which shows it is pointing to Christ rather than Israel. Again, if you think this is errant, than you need to take that up with the Holy Spirit who inspired the text. As I said before, we need to interpret our OT understanding in the manner of the NT inspired authors. Dispensational views reject inspired interpretation by NT authors of the OT. THese are issues that Paul was willing to die over. I think you should reread the NT interpretations of the OT and reconsider your position on this important matter.
Hi Wormwood, Your words: "Notice how Paul speaks of the "promises" made to Abraham. He doesn't just have one particular promise in mind, but all of the promises God made to Abraham were ultimately about Christ."
Not meaning to offend but I believe your interpretation is much broader in scope than Paul intended. Let's look at these promises Paul is speaking of: Gen. 12:1-3 - "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
There are four promises made here and only the last one is referencing Christ. Now let's look at the greater context of Gal. 3 in which Paul identifies exactly which covenant promises he is referring to.
Gal. 3:10-17 - "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
If that one doesn't satisfy you, let's look at covenant that was ratified by circumcision.
Gen. 17:7-10 - "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations (=Israel) for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (=Israel)
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, (=Israel) the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (whose God? Israel's)
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (=Israel)
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; (=Israel) Every man child among you shall be circumcised."
I'm sorry, but dispensationalism regarding how God deals with people differently at different times is a fact, not conjecture. There were national promises made and there were personal promises made. Israel, in the form of the 144,000 + along with those gentiles who survive the sheep and goat judgment of Matt. 25, are the one's who will live on earth during the millennium so God can keep those promises He made to Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. Yes, many of those promises, especially the spiritual ones, we the church can now partake of, but the land promises to Israel will never change. Their destiny is NOT over. What do you think this means? Rom. 11:25 - "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." or Luke 21:24 "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Rev. 11:2 - "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
Rev. 11:2 tells us when the end of the "times of the gentiles" will "come in". What do you think happens then? The blindness will be taken away and...Zech. 12:10 - "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." And then what happens next? Some of Israel recognizes that the Anti-Christ is NOT their true Savior and...Rev. 12:6 - "And the woman (believing Israel, possibly including the 144,000) fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."
Just prior to the millennium, this is SOME of Israel's destiny. Imo, the church will be raptured/resurrected before then.
Not meaning to offend but I believe your interpretation is much broader in scope than Paul intended. Let's look at these promises Paul is speaking of: Gen. 12:1-3 - "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
There are four promises made here and only the last one is referencing Christ. Now let's look at the greater context of Gal. 3 in which Paul identifies exactly which covenant promises he is referring to.
Gal. 3:10-17 - "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
If that one doesn't satisfy you, let's look at covenant that was ratified by circumcision.
Gen. 17:7-10 - "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations (=Israel) for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (=Israel)
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, (=Israel) the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (whose God? Israel's)
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (=Israel)
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; (=Israel) Every man child among you shall be circumcised."
I'm sorry, but dispensationalism regarding how God deals with people differently at different times is a fact, not conjecture. There were national promises made and there were personal promises made. Israel, in the form of the 144,000 + along with those gentiles who survive the sheep and goat judgment of Matt. 25, are the one's who will live on earth during the millennium so God can keep those promises He made to Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. Yes, many of those promises, especially the spiritual ones, we the church can now partake of, but the land promises to Israel will never change. Their destiny is NOT over. What do you think this means? Rom. 11:25 - "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." or Luke 21:24 "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Rev. 11:2 - "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
Rev. 11:2 tells us when the end of the "times of the gentiles" will "come in". What do you think happens then? The blindness will be taken away and...Zech. 12:10 - "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." And then what happens next? Some of Israel recognizes that the Anti-Christ is NOT their true Savior and...Rev. 12:6 - "And the woman (believing Israel, possibly including the 144,000) fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."
Just prior to the millennium, this is SOME of Israel's destiny. Imo, the church will be raptured/resurrected before then.
Trekson,
You may have to clarify what your point is with regards to the promises. I am not sure I am following you. As you clarify your meaning, understand that Paul is referencing the promises "to Abraham and his seed."
Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was born according to the flesh, but he did not receive the blessing or promises. Isaac was born as a result of faith in God's promise. True children of Abraham, are those who are born of Abraham's faith, not merely his flesh. Paul teaches on this clearly. Being of Abraham's flesh means nothing because his children of products of his faith. Those who have faith in Christ are of the faith of Abraham and are heirs of the promises made to Abraham and his "seed/Christ."
If Israel was mandated to circumcise every male as a result of this "everlasting covenant," than how can Paul say, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” (Galatians 5:1–3, ESV)?
If God really has a special plan for Israel in accordance with the first covenant, then how can Paul say things like:
I reject dispensationalism because, as Paul teaches plainly in Romans 4, God has always dealt with people according to one plan...faith. Abraham received the mark of circumcision as a result of his faith. David, one who lived under law, sought justification as a result of his faith. Habakkuk declared that "the righteous will live by faith." God has not used different dispensations in his dealing with people. He has always called them to live in faith. Yes, in the first covenant, there were festivals, sacrifices, circumcisions, and so forth that were required by the law. But as Paul points out, the law was given that sin might increase...thus driving people to faith and longing for a Savior. It is a major error to see God's dealing with Abraham as one dispensation, Moses as another dispensation, Christ as another dispensation, etc. God has dealt with his people only in accordance with their faith...the requirements of the law were merely foreshadowings of Christ...not a different manner of dealing with people.
You may have to clarify what your point is with regards to the promises. I am not sure I am following you. As you clarify your meaning, understand that Paul is referencing the promises "to Abraham and his seed."
So to say that only one of the promises refer to Christ is missing the point entirely. Paul is arguing that all the blessings God aimed at Abraham were funneled through Christ, and Christ alone. God gave a blessing to Abraham AND his seed (Christ) and that blessing belongs to all Abraham's children that are children by faith. Paul explains his meaning in detail and I will outline it for you briefly.
Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was born according to the flesh, but he did not receive the blessing or promises. Isaac was born as a result of faith in God's promise. True children of Abraham, are those who are born of Abraham's faith, not merely his flesh. Paul teaches on this clearly. Being of Abraham's flesh means nothing because his children of products of his faith. Those who have faith in Christ are of the faith of Abraham and are heirs of the promises made to Abraham and his "seed/Christ."
Rather than trying to walk through all of the two covenant issues as it relates to Israel and the Church, let me simply ask you some questions.
If Israel was mandated to circumcise every male as a result of this "everlasting covenant," than how can Paul say, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” (Galatians 5:1–3, ESV)?
If God really has a special plan for Israel in accordance with the first covenant, then how can Paul say things like:
The fact is, you are suggesting that those who are Jews SHOULD put confidence in their flesh because this gives them special means beyond Christ for salvation. You are suggesting that God has special plans for Israel that are not centered on faith in Christ, but simply on their fleshly heritage. In my opinion, this flies in the face of everything Paul teaches. Yes, God has not cast Israel off because of their unbelief and perhaps prior to the return of Christ, many people in Israel will repent and come to faith in Christ due to the witness of the church in the world. However, there is NO OTHER PLAN to save any person other than faith in Christ. The old covenant pointed all people, Jews and Gentiles, to Christ.
I reject dispensationalism because, as Paul teaches plainly in Romans 4, God has always dealt with people according to one plan...faith. Abraham received the mark of circumcision as a result of his faith. David, one who lived under law, sought justification as a result of his faith. Habakkuk declared that "the righteous will live by faith." God has not used different dispensations in his dealing with people. He has always called them to live in faith. Yes, in the first covenant, there were festivals, sacrifices, circumcisions, and so forth that were required by the law. But as Paul points out, the law was given that sin might increase...thus driving people to faith and longing for a Savior. It is a major error to see God's dealing with Abraham as one dispensation, Moses as another dispensation, Christ as another dispensation, etc. God has dealt with his people only in accordance with their faith...the requirements of the law were merely foreshadowings of Christ...not a different manner of dealing with people.
Hi Wormwood, Your words: "As you clarify your meaning, understand that Paul is referencing the promises "to Abraham and his seed." Paul is arguing that all the blessings God aimed at Abraham were funneled through Christ, and Christ alone.
No, Paul is not saying that at all. Paul is speaking of two specific promises, made at specific times. Gal. 3:8 - "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
This promise is the first one that Paul is referencing. If you believe that every time the OT uses the phrase, "thy seed", it is speaking ONLY of Christ, you are mistaken. The second one I pointed out in the last post and that is the covenant of the law. Gal. 3:17 - "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,(Abraham) cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
Your words: "The fact is, you are suggesting that those who are Jews SHOULD put confidence in their flesh because this gives them special means beyond Christ for salvation. You are suggesting that God has special plans for Israel that are not centered on faith in Christ, but simply on their fleshly heritage."
I have never suggested any such thing! You are reading into my posts, things that aren't there.
Your words: "I reject dispensationalism because, as Paul teaches plainly in Romans 4, God has always dealt with people according to one plan...faith. Abraham received the mark of circumcision as a result of his faith. David, one who lived under law, sought justification as a result of his faith. Habakkuk declared that "the righteous will live by faith."
I agree with the bold part 100%.
Your words: "God has not used different dispensations in his dealing with people. He has always called them to live in faith. Yes, in the first covenant, there were festivals, sacrifices, circumcisions, and so forth that were required by the law. But as Paul points out, the law was given that sin might increase...thus driving people to faith and longing for a Savior. It is a major error to see God's dealing with Abraham as one dispensation, Moses as another dispensation, Christ as another dispensation, etc. God has dealt with his people only in accordance with their faith...the requirements of the law were merely foreshadowings of Christ...not a different manner of dealing with people."
Here lies the crux of our differing viewpoints. It is in how we view the word "dispensations". I DO NOT see dispensations as varying ways of salvation. That is through faith alone, I agree. I see dispensations as "time periods" only and just acknowledge that fact that God dealt differently with people in various points of time. That's NOT saying there were different "methods" to attain salvation other than faith.
From Adam-Noah there was no law. Without the law there is no sin but a point could be argued that they obeyed an unwritten law through their conscience. That is why Christ went down to preach to those of that time period. 1 Pet. 3:19-20.
We aren't really told much about the time period from Noah-Abram.
From Abraham-Christ - The law. Again, faith is the catalyst but how God interacted w/ the Israelites, because of the law and the temple, was just different from how He interacts with the church.
Christ-present - Grace - Accessed by faith, but we can interact w/ God on a different scale from those of the OT. It is more personal, people aren't being stoned or crucified because of the law. Christ paid all those penalties for us.
The differences in how God interacts with us is what makes them different dispensations. I repeat, the path to God has always been through faith.
Nor do I believe that God will deal with Israel differently in the future. The path will still be faith in Christ. I do not believe that the law will be reinstated as some do. The only difference is in the destiny of the living Israelis. In fulfillment of the land promises, they will receive those promises in the millennium. The 144,000 + will only be "sealed" because they have come to salvation through belief in Christ as their Messiah. No other way than faith!
Does this clarify things a little?
No, Paul is not saying that at all. Paul is speaking of two specific promises, made at specific times. Gal. 3:8 - "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
This promise is the first one that Paul is referencing. If you believe that every time the OT uses the phrase, "thy seed", it is speaking ONLY of Christ, you are mistaken. The second one I pointed out in the last post and that is the covenant of the law. Gal. 3:17 - "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,(Abraham) cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
Your words: "The fact is, you are suggesting that those who are Jews SHOULD put confidence in their flesh because this gives them special means beyond Christ for salvation. You are suggesting that God has special plans for Israel that are not centered on faith in Christ, but simply on their fleshly heritage."
I have never suggested any such thing! You are reading into my posts, things that aren't there.
Your words: "I reject dispensationalism because, as Paul teaches plainly in Romans 4, God has always dealt with people according to one plan...faith. Abraham received the mark of circumcision as a result of his faith. David, one who lived under law, sought justification as a result of his faith. Habakkuk declared that "the righteous will live by faith."
I agree with the bold part 100%.
Your words: "God has not used different dispensations in his dealing with people. He has always called them to live in faith. Yes, in the first covenant, there were festivals, sacrifices, circumcisions, and so forth that were required by the law. But as Paul points out, the law was given that sin might increase...thus driving people to faith and longing for a Savior. It is a major error to see God's dealing with Abraham as one dispensation, Moses as another dispensation, Christ as another dispensation, etc. God has dealt with his people only in accordance with their faith...the requirements of the law were merely foreshadowings of Christ...not a different manner of dealing with people."
Here lies the crux of our differing viewpoints. It is in how we view the word "dispensations". I DO NOT see dispensations as varying ways of salvation. That is through faith alone, I agree. I see dispensations as "time periods" only and just acknowledge that fact that God dealt differently with people in various points of time. That's NOT saying there were different "methods" to attain salvation other than faith.
From Adam-Noah there was no law. Without the law there is no sin but a point could be argued that they obeyed an unwritten law through their conscience. That is why Christ went down to preach to those of that time period. 1 Pet. 3:19-20.
We aren't really told much about the time period from Noah-Abram.
From Abraham-Christ - The law. Again, faith is the catalyst but how God interacted w/ the Israelites, because of the law and the temple, was just different from how He interacts with the church.
Christ-present - Grace - Accessed by faith, but we can interact w/ God on a different scale from those of the OT. It is more personal, people aren't being stoned or crucified because of the law. Christ paid all those penalties for us.
The differences in how God interacts with us is what makes them different dispensations. I repeat, the path to God has always been through faith.
Nor do I believe that God will deal with Israel differently in the future. The path will still be faith in Christ. I do not believe that the law will be reinstated as some do. The only difference is in the destiny of the living Israelis. In fulfillment of the land promises, they will receive those promises in the millennium. The 144,000 + will only be "sealed" because they have come to salvation through belief in Christ as their Messiah. No other way than faith!
Does this clarify things a little?
My Ten Rebuttal Rebuttals ... hope it makes sense.
10) Your quote,
"Most would argue that Daniel is referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes IV in that prophecy. If there is an ongoing fulfillment of that passage, it is based purely on speculation. Its just as possible that the greater fulfillment (if there is one) of Daniel's prophecy is that it is referring to Satan (which is what I think 2 Thess. is clearly referring to). See my comments on 2 Thess. 2 above). It's a long shot to say that this text is definitive proof that there will be an Antichrist (imho).
My Response,
Yes old Antiochus Epiphanes did exactly what the prophecy said ... he tried to stop the sacrifices and offered abominable things in the altar, BUT dear brother,
Paul uses the term "the man of lawlessness", this is a man ... Greek -anthropos - if you check the definition it states "a man, one of the human race".
So this is not satan.
9) Your quote,
I think it is only natural for people to speculate on an Antichrist if the Scriptures warned of such a coming individual. Why else would Scripture warn about it
if not to cause people to try to identify the figure during their time? This is a reason why I don't think Scripture teaches the concept.
My response,
Ok, now you're saying that there is an Antichrist, when you're otherwise saying there is not one. Furthermore, no one in history after the prophecy did what
the the Antichrist was supposed to do according to what Paul says he was going to do ... so then it's futuristic.
8) Your quote,
I disagree on your chronological approach to Revelation. I have written on this concept as well. Revelation should no more be read chronologically than
Daniels different visions should be seen as following each other chronologically. I think Revelation is clearly repetitive...it is evident since we see final
judgment take place five times in Revelation. Yes, two beings are thrown in the lake of fire. The beast is pretty much identical to Daniel's beast, which
most would agree is the Roman empire. Why should we think this is now an individual rather than a nation/world power? We also see a prostitute drinking
a cup of the saints blood. Do you see this as a specific individual as well?
My response,
The judgements of God, the horsemen, the bowls and the trumpets follow on from each other, this for me proves chronology and succession in and
cancels out the notion of repetition.
The judgements are chronological.
The two thrown into the lake of fire are clearly described as people,
The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and
night forever and ever. Rev 20:10
God does not throw political systems into hell because they are just ideas of men/satan, rather he throws individuals in because they are the ones
behind these systems and are therefore more specifically guilty.
The prostitute though is a political/spiritual system because we find her "sitting on" the beast which has seven heads and tens horns which if you check
turn out to be nations or blocks of nations - which ever you prefer.
7) Your quote,
I am familiar with the passages. I challenge you to pick up 5 different commentaries on these passages and see how many of them agree. Church history
has been filled with a wide range of views on these passages...which speak both to their complexity and potential symbolism. Thus, I think its safe to say
these are not straight forward.
My response,
Alright, to inform the casual reader, Wormwood is referring to texts that speak on the antichrist which he is saying are not straightforward that there will be
such an individual.
I must disagree with this because as I've already stated above in point 10, Paul uses the term "anthropos" or one of the human race ... in relation to
the coming "man of lawlessness".
IT IS therefore clearly a man that will do these things, a coming man of great evil ... that's clear right ?
6) Your quote,
In my opinion, the "abomination that causes desolation" is the rejection and murder of the sinless Son of God. This sacrifice was both an abomination
in that it was a rejection of God's chosen one, as well as Gods means of putting an end to sacrifice and offering. No more sacrifice is needed due to
the substitutionary death of Christ. I think Peter points to this same concept in Acts 2:22-24.
My response,
Nice try Wormwood, but I think I explained it clearly by illustrating the fact that the "abomination that causes desolation" is a person who does something
that causes the temple to be desolate or empty of priests and sacrifices.
This is not a rejection of salvation in Christ because Christ had ALREADY BEEN REJECTED when Paul wrote this so why did he not simply say that
it had already occurred by the people rejecting Jesus AND refer to it as something that WAS STILL TO COME.
Got you there huh
.
5) Your quote,
Yes, it is evident to the world (and to God) who bows the knee to Caesar and who bows the knee to Christ. Early Christians were forbidden to buy
and sell in the market if they would not offer incense to the gods. If you read the letters to the churches in Revelation you see hints of this very issue.
In many places in the world today Christians cannot thrive in the marketplace if they choose to remain loyal to Christ. The mark is spiritual. Those who
belong to the Spirit are often persecuted by those who belong to the world...in many ways...one of those ways is often financial. Many will take small
steps of compromise, but this visions (and the warnings of Jesus to the churches) reveal that you either serve God or mammon. You cannot serve both...
as many attempt to do today.
My response,
It is only evident if there is something tangible to give it or make it clear, just because you and I believe in Christ doesn't in itself show on our
faces ... we have to do something or say something or have some type of marking to reveal it.
And that is what the mark of the beast does, it shows ... and if you don't have it whether it's a chip under the skin or some type of mark it will show
because it will be evident when you go and by or sell.
4) Your quote,
Yes, this is precisely my point. Daniel is told what the 70 weeks points toward:
The fact that people use these weeks to point 2000+ years past the event that did these things tells me that their interpretation is way off. I am familiar
with the dispensational charts and graphs. I am simply saying that they contradict what the angel told Daniel. ALL of these events took place at the
cross/resurrection. Jesus ended transgression, sin, brought atonement, everlasting righteousness and fulfilled ALL of the Law and Prophets. The church
is the new Temple made with living stones. We are the body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit....to point back to Jerusalem and a physical temple
made of rock is to be guilty of modern-day Judaizing.
My response,
No, not so, Messiah the Prince - Jesus - is cut off during the 70 weeks.
And let's face it 3 days after he was cut off he rose from the dead and brought salvation but that was not the end because the 70 weeks are not up.
3) Your quote,
My point is that this would not alleviate fears if Paul pointed to a mysterious Antichrist. They could just say, "Yep, Nero was the Antichrist and now
he's dead. Yep you missed the rebellion and the Second Coming." Paul's discussion points to a final end of the one who has behind the rebellion
and sin of the world since the garden.
My response,
It most definitely would alleviate their fears because this person had not yet made his appearance and that would have quelled any fear.
It's like asking, "Has the boss come in yet because I'm worried I haven't drawn up those documents yet"?
"Nah, you're still ok he's only coming in tomorrow".
That would quell any immediate fear wouldn't it ?
Besides Nero was still very much alive, he's the guy who had Paul's head cut off and he did not do the things Paul said he was going to do.
2) Your quote,
Yes we differ on our interpretation of Revelation 20.
My response,
Ok
1) Your quote,
I think it makes a world of difference. If the lawless one is currently opposing God (during Paul's writing) then it is very possible that he does not have a
future person in mind.
My response,
Yes, if the lawless one was opposing God during Paul's time then he would not have a futuristic person in mind.
But please keep in mind that the devil has been opposing God from before the time of Eden, so when Paul speaks about the coming man of lawlessness
who has not yet arrived he is clearly not talking about the devil .... so we can rule out the devil.
That's number one and number two, the roman emperors did oppose Christianity even in Paul's day but none of them did what Paul says this specific individual
was going to do.
Whew that was long B) but I made it ... eventually.
10) Your quote,
"Most would argue that Daniel is referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes IV in that prophecy. If there is an ongoing fulfillment of that passage, it is based purely on speculation. Its just as possible that the greater fulfillment (if there is one) of Daniel's prophecy is that it is referring to Satan (which is what I think 2 Thess. is clearly referring to). See my comments on 2 Thess. 2 above). It's a long shot to say that this text is definitive proof that there will be an Antichrist (imho).
My Response,
Yes old Antiochus Epiphanes did exactly what the prophecy said ... he tried to stop the sacrifices and offered abominable things in the altar, BUT dear brother,
Paul uses the term "the man of lawlessness", this is a man ... Greek -anthropos - if you check the definition it states "a man, one of the human race".
So this is not satan.
9) Your quote,
I think it is only natural for people to speculate on an Antichrist if the Scriptures warned of such a coming individual. Why else would Scripture warn about it
if not to cause people to try to identify the figure during their time? This is a reason why I don't think Scripture teaches the concept.
My response,
Ok, now you're saying that there is an Antichrist, when you're otherwise saying there is not one. Furthermore, no one in history after the prophecy did what
the the Antichrist was supposed to do according to what Paul says he was going to do ... so then it's futuristic.
8) Your quote,
I disagree on your chronological approach to Revelation. I have written on this concept as well. Revelation should no more be read chronologically than
Daniels different visions should be seen as following each other chronologically. I think Revelation is clearly repetitive...it is evident since we see final
judgment take place five times in Revelation. Yes, two beings are thrown in the lake of fire. The beast is pretty much identical to Daniel's beast, which
most would agree is the Roman empire. Why should we think this is now an individual rather than a nation/world power? We also see a prostitute drinking
a cup of the saints blood. Do you see this as a specific individual as well?
My response,
The judgements of God, the horsemen, the bowls and the trumpets follow on from each other, this for me proves chronology and succession in and
cancels out the notion of repetition.
The judgements are chronological.
The two thrown into the lake of fire are clearly described as people,
The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and
night forever and ever. Rev 20:10
God does not throw political systems into hell because they are just ideas of men/satan, rather he throws individuals in because they are the ones
behind these systems and are therefore more specifically guilty.
The prostitute though is a political/spiritual system because we find her "sitting on" the beast which has seven heads and tens horns which if you check
turn out to be nations or blocks of nations - which ever you prefer.
7) Your quote,
I am familiar with the passages. I challenge you to pick up 5 different commentaries on these passages and see how many of them agree. Church history
has been filled with a wide range of views on these passages...which speak both to their complexity and potential symbolism. Thus, I think its safe to say
these are not straight forward.
My response,
Alright, to inform the casual reader, Wormwood is referring to texts that speak on the antichrist which he is saying are not straightforward that there will be
such an individual.
I must disagree with this because as I've already stated above in point 10, Paul uses the term "anthropos" or one of the human race ... in relation to
the coming "man of lawlessness".
IT IS therefore clearly a man that will do these things, a coming man of great evil ... that's clear right ?
6) Your quote,
In my opinion, the "abomination that causes desolation" is the rejection and murder of the sinless Son of God. This sacrifice was both an abomination
in that it was a rejection of God's chosen one, as well as Gods means of putting an end to sacrifice and offering. No more sacrifice is needed due to
the substitutionary death of Christ. I think Peter points to this same concept in Acts 2:22-24.
My response,
Nice try Wormwood, but I think I explained it clearly by illustrating the fact that the "abomination that causes desolation" is a person who does something
that causes the temple to be desolate or empty of priests and sacrifices.
This is not a rejection of salvation in Christ because Christ had ALREADY BEEN REJECTED when Paul wrote this so why did he not simply say that
it had already occurred by the people rejecting Jesus AND refer to it as something that WAS STILL TO COME.
Got you there huh
.5) Your quote,
Yes, it is evident to the world (and to God) who bows the knee to Caesar and who bows the knee to Christ. Early Christians were forbidden to buy
and sell in the market if they would not offer incense to the gods. If you read the letters to the churches in Revelation you see hints of this very issue.
In many places in the world today Christians cannot thrive in the marketplace if they choose to remain loyal to Christ. The mark is spiritual. Those who
belong to the Spirit are often persecuted by those who belong to the world...in many ways...one of those ways is often financial. Many will take small
steps of compromise, but this visions (and the warnings of Jesus to the churches) reveal that you either serve God or mammon. You cannot serve both...
as many attempt to do today.
My response,
It is only evident if there is something tangible to give it or make it clear, just because you and I believe in Christ doesn't in itself show on our
faces ... we have to do something or say something or have some type of marking to reveal it.
And that is what the mark of the beast does, it shows ... and if you don't have it whether it's a chip under the skin or some type of mark it will show
because it will be evident when you go and by or sell.
4) Your quote,
Yes, this is precisely my point. Daniel is told what the 70 weeks points toward:
The fact that people use these weeks to point 2000+ years past the event that did these things tells me that their interpretation is way off. I am familiar
with the dispensational charts and graphs. I am simply saying that they contradict what the angel told Daniel. ALL of these events took place at the
cross/resurrection. Jesus ended transgression, sin, brought atonement, everlasting righteousness and fulfilled ALL of the Law and Prophets. The church
is the new Temple made with living stones. We are the body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit....to point back to Jerusalem and a physical temple
made of rock is to be guilty of modern-day Judaizing.
My response,
No, not so, Messiah the Prince - Jesus - is cut off during the 70 weeks.
And let's face it 3 days after he was cut off he rose from the dead and brought salvation but that was not the end because the 70 weeks are not up.
3) Your quote,
My point is that this would not alleviate fears if Paul pointed to a mysterious Antichrist. They could just say, "Yep, Nero was the Antichrist and now
he's dead. Yep you missed the rebellion and the Second Coming." Paul's discussion points to a final end of the one who has behind the rebellion
and sin of the world since the garden.
My response,
It most definitely would alleviate their fears because this person had not yet made his appearance and that would have quelled any fear.
It's like asking, "Has the boss come in yet because I'm worried I haven't drawn up those documents yet"?
"Nah, you're still ok he's only coming in tomorrow".
That would quell any immediate fear wouldn't it ?
Besides Nero was still very much alive, he's the guy who had Paul's head cut off and he did not do the things Paul said he was going to do.
2) Your quote,
Yes we differ on our interpretation of Revelation 20.
My response,
Ok
1) Your quote,
I think it makes a world of difference. If the lawless one is currently opposing God (during Paul's writing) then it is very possible that he does not have a
future person in mind.
My response,
Yes, if the lawless one was opposing God during Paul's time then he would not have a futuristic person in mind.
But please keep in mind that the devil has been opposing God from before the time of Eden, so when Paul speaks about the coming man of lawlessness
who has not yet arrived he is clearly not talking about the devil .... so we can rule out the devil.
That's number one and number two, the roman emperors did oppose Christianity even in Paul's day but none of them did what Paul says this specific individual
was going to do.
Whew that was long B) but I made it ... eventually.
Similar threads
