The Restrainer and the Restrained

[brakelite]

yet we have "Return to Me, and I will return to you," the only "return" you can Quote

And just a little later we have the context of that return...
KJV Malachi 4
God's Judgement on the Wicked
1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

 

[bbyrd009]

And just a little later we have the context of that return...

ah, don't think so wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

And those that were filled with the Spirit spoke of Christ returning yet in the future, just as the two angels told the disciples at the ascension...that Jesus would return in like manner as He arose. Physically and visibly. Not as a Spirit. But as lightening from east to west....unmistakable.

yet we have "Return to Me, and I will return to you," the only "return" you can Quote, and them two angels did not say what you are inferring wadr, that is your expectations talking.

Obviously standing there looking up into the sky would be advisable if your pov were accurate?

see, if you wanna be a teacher then answer a pertinent Q imo; i mean look, you don't have to right now, but you are going to be asked this again someday soon, and you are not going to be able to plead the 5th then i guess, nor puke all over it as CI has done

 

[CoreIssue]

Acts 1:11

New International Version
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

Said by the angels to the men watching Christ ascend to heaven.

 

[brakelite]

see, if you wanna be a teacher then answer a pertinent Q imo; i mean look, you don't have to right now, but you are going to be asked this again someday soon, and you are not going to be able to plead the 5th then i guess, nor puke all over it as CI has done

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that before we can expect to be accepted by the Lord when He returns, we first must receive z Him. But I do not think for one moment that that one verse containing the word'return' can be used as I believe you are doing to cent the second coming of Jesus. The entire chapter of Matthew 25 is dedicated to Jesus speaking of His own coming again at a time of His Fathers choosing. The previous chapter Jesus was feelingdeali the expectations of His disciples regarding the coming of the 'kingdom'. They, along with every other Jew, and in full accord with the traditions and teachings handed down from generation to generation, expected their Messiah to come and defeat their enemies, in the immediate context, Rome.
So Jesus, not for the first time, had to gently realign their hopes and expectations. Do first, he dismantled their concept of an impending early kingdom with them at the head table, telling them that their previous temple and everything connected to it will be destroyed... Utterly. To the disciples, that was the end of the world. So they asked, when shall these things be, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world. Jesu hav s answered on such a way as not to destroy their hopes completely. He didn't tell them it would be 1000s of years away, yet for our sakes have us signs and indications to when all these things would takes place. But Jesus did not expect us to be clairvoyants in predicting the future. He said elsewhere that the way to determine our place in the prophetic timeline was not to look to the future, but to the past. He said, ye shall see... Ye shall hear... Ye shall observe...
KJV Luke 21
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

KJV John 13
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

KJV John 14
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

It is when we have observed history to fulfill all that the prophets have said, then we know where we are. We are in expectation of the second coming because of what has taken place in the past... What we have in the past witnessed, and what we witness today. It is because of what has recently taken place, W can with some certainty understand in general terms what we can expect to come next.
But only those who watch... Only those who are willing to stand on the walls of the city and give the warning will be given the eyes to see and the ears to hear the signs of the times.
Jesus is coming again, and it is a fact that his coming had been delayed, as the parable of the ten Virgin's shows. Delayed not because he wasn't ready to come nor because it wasn't time, but because the church has been asleep. So in a sense, your "return to me" call to the church is extremely appropriate. Yet, the bridegroom came when some were not ready. The time is coming that the numbers will be sufficient, and the time right, for God to declare, "it is time".
KJV Revelation 22
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

 

[ScottA]

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that before we can expect to be accepted by the Lord when He returns, we first must receive z Him. But I do not think for one moment that that one verse containing the word'return' can be used as I believe you are doing to cent the second coming of Jesus. The entire chapter of Matthew 25 is dedicated to Jesus speaking of His own coming again at a time of His Fathers choosing. The previous chapter Jesus was feelingdeali the expectations of His disciples regarding the coming of the 'kingdom'. They, along with every other Jew, and in full accord with the traditions and teachings handed down from generation to generation, expected their Messiah to come and defeat their enemies, in the immediate context, Rome.
So Jesus, not for the first time, had to gently realign their hopes and expectations. Do first, he dismantled their concept of an impending early kingdom with them at the head table, telling them that their previous temple and everything connected to it will be destroyed... Utterly. To the disciples, that was the end of the world. So they asked, when shall these things be, what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world. Jesu hav s answered on such a way as not to destroy their hopes completely. He didn't tell them it would be 1000s of years away, yet for our sakes have us signs and indications to when all these things would takes place. But Jesus did not expect us to be clairvoyants in predicting the future. He said elsewhere that the way to determine our place in the prophetic timeline was not to look to the future, but to the past. He said, ye shall see... Ye shall hear... Ye shall observe...
KJV Luke 21
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

KJV John 13
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

KJV John 14
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

It is when we have observed history to fulfill all that the prophets have said, then we know where we are. We are in expectation of the second coming because of what has taken place in the past... What we have in the past witnessed, and what we witness today. It is because of what has recently taken place, W can with some certainty understand in general terms what we can expect to come next.
But only those who watch... Only those who are willing to stand on the walls of the city and give the warning will be given the eyes to see and the ears to hear the signs of the times.
Jesus is coming again, and it is a fact that his coming had been delayed, as the parable of the ten Virgin's shows. Delayed not because he wasn't ready to come nor because it wasn't time, but because the church has been asleep. So in a sense, your "return to me" call to the church is extremely appropriate. Yet, the bridegroom came when some were not ready. The time is coming that the numbers will be sufficient, and the time right, for God to declare, "it is time".
KJV Revelation 22
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

You are quoting it...but don't yet see it..

If your body is the temple, and what Jesus said of the temple is true... When shall all these things come to pass?

But, but, but...

No buts! That is what He said.

 

[brakelite]

You are quoting it...but don't yet see it..

If your body is the temple, and what Jesus said of the temple is true... When shall all these things come to pass?

But, but, but...

No buts! That is what He said.

Indeed He did say that, and I believe it implicitly. The church however isn't the only temple.
Heb. 8:1 ¶ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Re 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Re 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

So if we, or at least our forbears, witnessed the first coming and the establishment of the church, there is no reason to expect that the promise of the New Jerusalem descending upon the earth out of heaven with all the saints inside prepared to take up permanent residence as inheritors of the new earth, will be any less real. Right? God takes His sanctuaries seriously.
Now I am not sure if that answers your post...if there is something you believe I am not seeing then by all means, have at it. I am not one to believe I understand everything there is to know...certainly when it comes to tomorrow.

 

[brakelite]

ha, funny how popular this opinion is even today i guess huh, just insert USA for Roman Empire?

Haha, yes indeed. Sir Saint Trump is saving the world from unspeakable terrors. The irony is that I am firmly of the belief that the USA (apologies to all good people of that nation) will be chiefly instrumental in establishing the Catholic led NWO global government and will use force to accomplish it. More to fear from any current US/church state union than comfort.

 

[brakelite]

You are missing the point. I didn't say that it had something to do with the discussion, only that it sets a precedence for looking for something to be fulfilled of God via something of the world. The point being, that we run the same risk of completely being blind, by now doing the same when looking to the church leaders who were at the time "now seeing dimly." Very bluntly, that means: they were "the blind leading the blind."

I am saying we have good reason not to follow their blindness. I am advising against it.

I have long held the view that American Protestantism, through aligning with the state and using the state as a battering ram, will attempt to fulfil prophecy... or at least their version of it. American support for Israel and financial support for a coming temple is not, or at least will not be, "an act of God". sorry if I misunderstood the gist of your post. Not even sure I am on the same page now, but I am sure you will let me know if I'm thinking in lines our of harmony with your own.

As for quoting the early church "fathers": as I have mentioned to BoL, I have no time for them as far as theology is concerned, as I often read his quotes of them and all it does for me is to confirm their steadily downward trend into apostasy and the formation of the papacy. However, like all things, we may learn from them as far as history is concerned, and discern what is truth. I quoted them in relation to the restrainer because they all actually agreed on something, which is unusual. And their particular view of the matter is also unusual in that for once, it lines up with scripture. I quote them also because BoL and others who are want to quote them frequently, and use them as some form of untarnished authority on all matters Christian, will find it difficult to refute their testimony when it comes to identifying the man of sin (the papacy) as rising next among the ten barbarian nations the ECFs were witnessing in their midst, when everything else that they were supposed to teach was Truth. Now yeah, I know, that works both ways. But remember that I said they were witnesses to history...which is a witness to prophecy...which is quite different to theology.

 

[brakelite]

this is a dialectic statement that is being interpreted logically, by someone using both eyes,
and your best shot here i guess is to just put me on ignore right now?

Another one of your more cryptic comments that I don't have the wherewithal at the moment to attempt to decipher, but you may be advised that I shall not put you on ignore...I need to keep both eyes on you at all times. Not that I'm suggesting you're a flash...bolt of lightening.

 

[Frank Lee]

As usual I begin to be prompted by other thoughts after reading such a dissertation!

Chiefly about how many things the disciples and apostles knew about everything. Such as;

Jude 1:9 KJVS
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

How many questions does this verse bring up? Oh for a complete record of all they knew and took for granted. Great revelations that would cause us to shiver.

But woe unto those engaged in the shaky art of scriptural extrapolation. They shall surely be treading on thin ice.

 

[bbyrd009]

The entire chapter of Matthew 25 is dedicated to Jesus speaking of His own coming again at a time of His Fathers choosing.

but i am not denying that Christ is revealed, and wadr you have added "His Father's choosing" which is not true, at least in a sense; or let's say it's not what the v says at least, right, it says "only the Father knows when," not "only the Father chooses when." God will not make anyone change their minds, in this sense; although i guess also God will make everyone change their minds too, sure.

Jesus is coming again, and it is a fact that his coming had been delayed, as the parable of the ten Virgin's shows.

ah, with the facts now. ok, i got no facts ok, all i can tell you is i disagree with that,
I will never leave you nor forsake you

Delayed not because he wasn't ready to come nor because it wasn't time, but because the church has been asleep.

sry bro, the Church is not the Dead imo, the Church is doing great!

have a nice Turkey Day!

(apologies to all good people of that nation)

it's a country, not a nation bl. sry, seems nit-picky i guess?

Another one of your more cryptic comments

no literal lightning to be seen with two eyes, sorry, you are gonna see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up, and you can justify standing there looking up into the sky however you like bl, lots of believers do, i used to too, and i got forgiven as well, y'all will too i guess. "Lightning flashes" has an obvious symbology that is not in the least cryptic to anyone with an ear, wadr

If y'all can make the kingdom come by observation better than the PTB, and you don't perceive any irony in that, then i wish you the best ok. i'm more comfortable not knowing now

 

[bbyrd009]

Acts 1:11

New International Version
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

Said by the angels to the men watching Christ ascend to heaven.

well, that is what is faithfully reported Written to us anyway, for us, yes, and a perfectly fine place to start i reckon

 

[bbyrd009]

Obviously standing there looking up into the sky would be advisable if the pov were accurate?

 

[ScottA]

Indeed He did say that, and I believe it implicitly. The church however isn't the only temple.
Heb. 8:1 ¶ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Re 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Re 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

So if we, or at least our forbears, witnessed the first coming and the establishment of the church, there is no reason to expect that the promise of the New Jerusalem descending upon the earth out of heaven with all the saints inside prepared to take up permanent residence as inheritors of the new earth, will be any less real. Right? God takes His sanctuaries seriously.
Now I am not sure if that answers your post...if there is something you believe I am not seeing then by all means, have at it. I am not one to believe I understand everything there is to know...certainly when it comes to tomorrow.

Right, but not with complete understanding. The new heaven and the new earth are as different as the flesh and the spirit. It is the spirit that is real, and the world is only created.

According to Jesus' prayers our temple and His are not different, but One, "as He and the Father are One." "The two become one", by one Spirit, which is the spirit of God. Thus, it is when the temple of the body that is destroy that "all these thing shall come to pass." Which, if you can receive it, came when we "were crucified and raised up with Christ" who laid down His flesh body and committed His spirit only to the Father, whom is spirit, and we who are born again of the spirit of God with Him.

The kingdom of heaven is not outward, but "within you", so too is the new earth. As Jesus explained those many times, the kingdom of heaven is only "like" the things He described. Thus, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation."

 

[ScottA]

I have long held the view that American Protestantism, through aligning with the state and using the state as a battering ram, will attempt to fulfil prophecy... or at least their version of it. American support for Israel and financial support for a coming temple is not, or at least will not be, "an act of God". sorry if I misunderstood the gist of your post. Not even sure I am on the same page now, but I am sure you will let me know if I'm thinking in lines our of harmony with your own.

As for quoting the early church "fathers": as I have mentioned to BoL, I have no time for them as far as theology is concerned, as I often read his quotes of them and all it does for me is to confirm their steadily downward trend into apostasy and the formation of the papacy. However, like all things, we may learn from them as far as history is concerned, and discern what is truth. I quoted them in relation to the restrainer because they all actually agreed on something, which is unusual. And their particular view of the matter is also unusual in that for once, it lines up with scripture. I quote them also because BoL and others who are want to quote them frequently, and use them as some form of untarnished authority on all matters Christian, will find it difficult to refute their testimony when it comes to identifying the man of sin (the papacy) as rising next among the ten barbarian nations the ECFs were witnessing in their midst, when everything else that they were supposed to teach was Truth. Now yeah, I know, that works both ways. But remember that I said they were witnesses to history...which is a witness to prophecy...which is quite different to theology.

The church fathers repeating the folly of men only seals their position as men, not men of God. The "blind leading the blind" is no confirmation of the truth. But don't get me wrong, they are "the good and faithful servants" who "brought the gospel to all nations." This is to their credit. Nonetheless, they have been wrong on everything else, that every generation should hear the same things they heard and nothing more. This is the justice of God. But we, like them, should rather have turned to the spirit of God when it "came upon us" with expectation and "quickly" should have seen Him in our midst, and walked in that light until the end, rather than looking for the Son to come again in the flesh - when He already has come. "It is finished."

 

[brakelite]

ah, with the facts now. ok, i got no facts ok, all i can tell you is i disagree with that,
I will never leave you nor forsake you

Can you not differentiate between the granting of His spirit, that has remained, and the physical Jesus that minister's as high priest in heaven and his coming again?
Are we not the bride in expectation of the husband? Why should not that be something worth looking forward to? And to prepare for? You see that is the crux of the problem. The bride has trouble putting on the wedding garment. She is not ready, wadr.

no literal lightning to be seen with two eyes, sorry, you are gonna see Him come down the same way you saw Him go up,

I get that. No literal lightening. But Jesus will come in like manner... And none will miss it.

 

[brakelite]

but i am not denying that Christ is revealed,

which is something quite different from physical personal appearance to reunite Himself with His church in like manner as He was after His resurrection. Why can it not be both?

I must admit to being a little slow. I take people generally at face value. I don't have a degree in sociology or psychology or even theology or divinity so it takes time for me to click as to discover some people's agendas or mindsets. What I see in this forum are two extremes with many variations in the middle. On the one hand we have the literalists. Revelation and apocalyptic thinking is very focused on precision of the word. For example, when revelation speaks of ...
KJV Revelation 14
20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
... They immediately look to an area in Israel capable of accommodating an army to the extent of which could produce such quantities of blood, and assume said army is squashed and squeezed like a large bunch of grapes in order to fulfill their literal understanding. Similar literal understanding is granted the mark of the beast. I remember b back in the 80s when computers were in their infancy the was apparently a very very very large computer in Brussels, holding an insignificant amount of information, nicknamed the'beast' The Mark of this beast became a literal bar code on the forehead. Such thinking still predominates the church.
Then we have the other extreme whereby everything is spiritual or allegorical. I could reference for example the second coming. Any allusion to the second coming is met with symbolism far exceeding the intent of the scripture writers. While there in indeed a lot of symbolism in scripture, not everything is to be understood in that way.
The balance between these two extremes lies in allowing scripture to interpret itself. Within prophecy for example the are already expositors freely offering explanations. The angels Gabriel for example telling Daniel the identity of the beasts he saw in vision.
The school of thinking which had led to the modern mindset of spiritualizing scripture goes back to Origen. Idealism favours allegorising prophecy to the point of absurdity.
An example of this is found in Luiz Alcazars anti-historicist book which promoted preterism in the 16th century. This was to combat the then common knowledge among protestants that identified the papacy as the Antichrist.
Note how Alcazar commented on the words “Behold, he commeth with clouds” in Rev. 1:7: “This signification of clouds has in it such force, that even if Christ should not come to Judgment in a material cloud, it might nevertheless be truly and beautifully said that He would come in clouds, according to the language of Sacred Scripture. . . . And this I wish to say rather that in the symbol of the clouds there is latent a much greater and more excellent mystery than any one might think, who considered only the grammatical sense of the Word—a sense to which I see that some persons are too much addicted. “Behold the Apocalypse sets before us the Advent of Christ in the clouds of the preaching of the Gospel, by means of which God pours down his heavenly shower, that is, the spirit of peace and of prayer.

Would I be correct in believing such as this muddied thinking is a clear and present danger to understanding the reality of the coming of Christ?

 

[bbyrd009]

Can you not differentiate between the granting of His spirit, that has remained, and the physical Jesus that minister's as high priest in heaven and his coming again?

ha, the flesh body of Jesus is now in heaven i guess, ok, and "we" are no longer the Body of Christ. So let's go with what you said; i cannot differentiate between them i guess, ya

Are we not the bride in expectation of the husband?

define "we" there if you would, any Muslims in that "we?"

I get that. No literal lightening. But Jesus will come in like manner... And none will miss it.

in their time, certainly not, but then you expect a mass event, correct, so that pov will not suit you i guess

bl, in your perspective it is advisable to look up into the sky for the bodily Return of Jesus,
and i have no desire to disabuse you of the notion, ok

which is something quite different from physical personal appearance to reunite Himself with His church in like manner as He was after His resurrection. Why can it not be both?

for the same reason that you cannot address the Q that i have now asked you several times, bl, and am now done asking.
but we could surely approach the dichotomy several other ways, that would obviously be a denial of the real Body of Christ, it denies that the same things will happen to us all, it denies the kingdom will not come by observation, and as those are required to be Christians/Jesus Worshippers it denies Respecter of Persons...i could prolly go on

but bam forward any other logical pov that you can think of here, and let's see if a single one can survive Ouroboros, the self-consumption of any logical pov that you can come up with, at least imo.

An example of this is found in Luiz Alcazars anti-historicist book which promoted preterism in the 16th century. This was to combat the then common knowledge among protestants that identified the papacy as the Antichrist.
Note how Alcazar commented on the words “Behold, he commeth with clouds” in Rev. 1:7: “This signification of clouds has in it such force, that even if Christ should not come to Judgment in a material cloud, it might nevertheless be truly and beautifully said that He would come in clouds, according to the language of Sacred Scripture. . . . And this I wish to say rather that in the symbol of the clouds there is latent a much greater and more excellent mystery than any one might think, who considered only the grammatical sense of the Word—a sense to which I see that some persons are too much addicted. “Behold the Apocalypse sets before us the Advent of Christ in the clouds of the preaching of the Gospel, by means of which God pours down his heavenly shower, that is, the spirit of peace and of prayer.

Would I be correct in believing such as this muddied thinking is a clear and present danger to understanding the reality of the coming of Christ?

you would have to specify whether the muddied thinking iyo is coming from the Prots or Alcazar, sorry, but even then, assuming Alcazar, i'm just too unfam with his definitions to really comment. i'm not sure what Jesuits believe tbh, but i also don't agree with this pinning down of antichrist to the papacy, even if that is surely an expression of antichrist

"Behold, the Apocalypse..." strikes me as an oxymoron right off the bat lol, even if i get the sense in which he meant that, but then several...Catholic terms are being used there, Advent is usually a code word, etc. So i can read that one way and agree, or another and disagree, sorry, but fwiw i initially disliked it, yet taking into consideration the time/context in which he wrote, i would be prepared to make allowances? "The clouds of preaching" i liked

 

[brakelite]

ha, the flesh body of Jesus is now in heaven i guess, ok, and "we" are no longer the Body of Christ. So let's go with what you said; i cannot differentiate between them i guess, ya
define "we" there if you would, any Muslims in that "we?"
in their time, certainly not, but then you expect a mass event, correct, so that pov will not suit you i guess

bl, in your perspective it is advisable to look up into the sky for the bodily Return of Jesus,
and i have no desire to disabuse you of the notion, ok

for the same reason that you cannot address the Q that i have now asked you several times, bl, and am now done asking.
but we could surely approach the dichotomy several other ways, that would obviously be a denial of the real Body of Christ, it denies that the same things will happen to us all, it denies the kingdom will not come by observation, and as those are required to be Christians/Jesus Worshippers it denies Respecter of Persons...i could prolly go on

but bam forward any other logical pov that you can think of here, and let's see if a single one can survive Ouroboros, the self-consumption of any logical pov that you can come up with, at least imo.
you would have to specify whether the muddied thinking iyo is coming from the Prots or Alcazar, sorry, but even then, assuming Alcazar, i'm just too unfam with his definitions to really comment. i'm not sure what Jesuits believe tbh, but i also don't agree with this pinning down of antichrist to the papacy, even if that is surely an expression of antichrist

"Behold, the Apocalypse..." strikes me as an oxymoron right off the bat lol, even if i get the sense in which he meant that, but then several...Catholic terms are being used there, Advent is usually a code word, etc. So i can read that one way and agree, or another and disagree, sorry, but fwiw i initially disliked it, yet taking into consideration the time/context in which he wrote, i would be prepared to make allowances? "The clouds of preaching" i liked

Okay, so there is no second coming in the sense that the fleshly person of Jesus leaves heaven and comes to earth, because He is already here in the form of His people... Whoever they are. I take it then that we have no business or right to expect the future to reveal anything different to what is going on now. The world in general continues in its rebellious wickedness... The church continues for many to accomplish what they can by way of reformation and social reordering in order to help the downtrodden, the rest of the church continues its perceived role as a glorified spiritual country club. There is no spiritual warfare between Christ and Satan and their angels, thus there is no ultimate game plan on God's part to secure victory... And little hope therefore of any of the suffering and death that reverberates across the globe without restraint is going to end any time soon. In fact, you think everything is hunky dory, life has never been better, (at least according to the statistics) and mankind will continue to evolve while God sits on His heavenly throne unconcerned and without any plans to change the status quo. He will tolerate forever the blasphemous claims of Rome... The deceptions that have darkened the minds and hearts of pagans and religionists the world over... the selfish sinful addictions that plague millions costing countless lives and causing immeasurable suffering in our neighbourhoods and towns... And tolerate also what you often and correctly name as the cult of Sol which dominates society and thumbs it's collective nose at God's authority and his laws.
You really believe that God has no plan to change this crazy situation the world is in?