Two particular problems with dispensationalism...

[Enoch111]

These are your exact words: "What is literal is literal, and what is metaphoric is metaphoric. But no one has the right or the authority to create fantasies by spiritualizing away the Scriptures." Are you now going to say that when the Bible DOES NOT say something is "The Antichrist", we can take references we find, and declare they mean "Antichrist?"

Willie,

If you would rather call him the Man of Sin, feel free. Ever since the Reformation this man has rightly been called the Antichrist, because he opposes Christ and also comes in place of Christ. That is the meaning of *antichristos*.

 

[Willie T]

Willie,

If you would rather call him the Man of Sin, feel free. Ever since the Reformation this man has rightly been called the Antichrist, because he opposes Christ and also comes in place of Christ. That is the meaning of *antichristos*.

So silly. How could the Apostles write that the antichrist was among them (In fact they said, "many of them" were there then.) if you are still waiting for this "mystery man" to appear?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I rather thought the apostle meant the spirit of antichrist was already among them. That's how I read it.

 

[Enoch111]

So silly. How could the Apostles write that the antichrist was among them (In fact they said, "many of them" were there then.) if you are still waiting for this "mystery man" to appear?

When John wrote about the antichrists within the churches, he was speaking about those who opposed and rejected "the doctrine of Christ" -- that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

But the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition (the Beast) is the epitome of the previous antichrists in that he sits in the temple of God and opposes Christ and God. So you are simply quibbling over nothing. Like I said, you need to sit down with your Bible and study the subject properly. Not come up with these meaningless objections (no doubt implanted by others in your thoughts).

 

[Davy]

I rather thought the apostle meant the spirit of antichrist was already among them. That's how I read it.

1 John 2:18 first phrase speaks of a singular antichrist the brethren had already heard shall come. It's the latter phrase that speaks of the "many antichrists" already at work idea. Therefore, those are 2 separate antichrist ideas, a head antichrist, and then his followers.

Where did they already hear that antichrist shall come???

From Jesus, in John 14:30.

The reason why the majority discount what Jesus said there, pointing to the coming of the devil to this world, literally, is because the majority are listening to men's doctrines instead of staying in God's Holy Writ.

This is still in our near future:

Rev 12:7-12
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
KJV

 

[Willie T]

I rather thought the apostle meant the spirit of antichrist was already among them. That's how I read it.

I think that is exactly what he meant.

 

[Davy]

I think that is exactly what he meant.

If the idea that many antichrists being already among them was all that the Apostles meant, then they would not have also warned the Church about the coming singular false one that is to deceive the whole world and whom the whole world (excepting Christ's elect) will worship in God's place (Rev.13; 2 Thess.2:4; Rev.13:11-15; etc.).

Also then, if the word "antichrist" of 1 John 2:18 was meant only about a spiritual idea, then it would mean we need to scrap a lot of New Testament Scripture about the coming false one our Lord Jesus and His Apostles warned us about for the end of this world. It would also mean we need to scrap all those writings of the early Church fathers too about a coming false one at the end that Scripture describes.

 

[Willie T]

If the idea that many antichrists being already among them was all that the Apostles meant, then they would not have also warned the Church about the coming singular false one that is to deceive the whole world and whom the whole world (excepting Christ's elect) will worship in God's place (Rev.13; 2 Thess.2:4; Rev.13:11-15; etc.).

Also then, if the word "antichrist" of 1 John 2:18 was meant only about a spiritual idea, then it would mean we need to scrap a lot of New Testament Scripture about the coming false one our Lord Jesus and His Apostles warned us about for the end of this world. It would also mean we need to scrap all those writings of the early Church fathers too about a coming false one at the end that Scripture describes.

Scrap the mistaken way we have often decided they have to be interpreted, YES! THAT is our biggest problem — NOT what the Bible says, but rather, the contorted ways we have twisted the intended meanings of those Scriptures.

 

[Enoch111]

...the contorted ways we have twisted the intended meanings of those Scriptures.

You should be the last person to make this remark. You do not even believe that the New Jerusalem is indeed a literal heavenly city designed and constructed by God to last for eternity. But it is plainly described in the Bible so that no one can be confused. So are you prepared to believe what the Bible says about the New Jerusalem?

 

[Willie T]

You should be the last person to make this remark. You do not even believe that the New Jerusalem is indeed a literal heavenly city designed and constructed by God to last for eternity. But it is plainly described in the Bible so that no one can be confused. So are you prepared to believe what the Bible says about the New Jerusalem?

That's exactly what I mean. The ridiculousness of thinking that our spirits are going to be warehoused in a brick and mortar city of buildings is hard to fathom someone imagining.

 

[Enoch111]

That's exactly what I mean. The ridiculousness of thinking that our spirits are going to be warehoused in a brick and mortar city of buildings is hard to fathom someone imagining.

What is ridiculous is your UNBELIEF. There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about the New Jerusalem. Quite the opposite. It is a GLORIOUS city, and your mockery is a display of UNBELIEF. So you just proved in yourself what you were disapproving in others.

And it is not just spirits who will dwell there. It will be the whole redeemed person -- body, soul, and spirit -- transformed and perfected to be with God and Christ for eternity. And this is not science fiction either.

 

[Davy]

Scrap the mistaken way we have often decided they have to be interpreted, YES! THAT is our biggest problem — NOT what the Bible says, but rather, the contorted ways we have twisted the intended meanings of those Scriptures.

No, your way of thinking scraps much Bible Scripture for the very end of this world.

There is an anti-Bible teaching by Satan's host against the clear Bible warning of a singular false one coming at the end of this world to demand to be worshiped as God.

Even the first phrase of the 1 John 2:18 verse is grammatically about a singular "antichrist" figure the brethren there had already heard shall come...

1 John 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
KJV

The ploy by Satan's little helpers is to deny that first description of a singular antichrist figure, and instead move quickly to the last phrase about many antichrists. Those who do that violate Jesus' warning in Revelation 22 about not adding or taking away what is written in His Word.

 

[farouk]

Well, it's not a problem for me either, but I should think it might be for Dispensationalists! If they lay claim to a literalist hermeneutic, and one that says that all prophecy is "history written in advance", and teach a very specific end time event and period, but then have different verses pointing to different time periods and suggesting perhaps there could be a little of "well, God might relent or change" tucked in there too, then...I should think that might be a problem for them, because it seems to me that they've just back-pedaled from their own rules of interpretation.

Not quite sure what you mean...

 

[Naomi25]

Not quite sure what you mean...

I think, from looking back at the conversation that it was a part of, it was not so much a definite comment on how Dispensationalists function, but more of a hypothetical based on a certain set of parameters that 'perhaps' some of them believe in.
I think it went something like this: Most think the Tribulation is 7 years. But the suggestion was floated that some think it won't actually be 7 years, but it will be 'cut short'...so not really 7 years.
My point was that it should be very difficult for people who hold to a strict 'literal' interpretation of scripture to say that the bible says "7 years", only to have it not actually be 7 years.
Hope that gives a little more clarification...although, when the line of thought was more "if/then" than straight forward, then perhaps we should all just ignore it!!

 

[farouk]

I think, from looking back at the conversation that it was a part of, it was not so much a definite comment on how Dispensationalists function, but more of a hypothetical based on a certain set of parameters that 'perhaps' some of them believe in.
I think it went something like this: Most think the Tribulation is 7 years. But the suggestion was floated that some think it won't actually be 7 years, but it will be 'cut short'...so not really 7 years.
My point was that it should be very difficult for people who hold to a strict 'literal' interpretation of scripture to say that the bible says "7 years", only to have it not actually be 7 years.
Hope that gives a little more clarification...although, when the line of thought was more "if/then" than straight forward, then perhaps we should all just ignore it!!

It relates to discussion of Daniel's 70th week.

 

[Naomi25]

It relates to discussion of Daniel's 70th week.

It did, more or less, yes. Most Dispensationalists, I believe, see the seventy weeks as a full 7 years. A thought was raised that it might not turn out to be exactly 7 years...and the conversation moved on from there. As I said...more or less hypothetical I think, more than anything.

 

[Enoch111]

Most Dispensationalists, I believe, see the seventy weeks as a full 7 years.

Not the seventy weeks (490 years) but the seventieth week (7 years).

 

[Naomi25]

Not the seventy weeks (490 years) but the seventieth week (7 years).

I did mean that, of course...but thank you for correcting me! Yes...the 'last' of those 70 weeks.

 

[aspen]

I just take issue with the sationalism