- Mar 11, 2014
- 48,492
- 10,167
Username who was a full Preterist
If you knew Reba ,here then I should know you.hitch was rather blunt and crude and well disliked futurism.
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Proposition: There Is No Compelling Argument For A Future Antichrist.
- Thread starter JAG ..
- Start date
If you knew Reba ,here then I should know you.hitch was rather blunt and crude and well disliked futurism.
- Thread starter
- #42
"Username who was a full Preterist"__jasonc
I never knew him. And just for the record I am NOT a full Preterist. Full Preterism is a false unorthodox teaching and orthodox Postmillennialists have nothing to do with Full Preterism. Thank God for that.
"If you knew Reba ,here then I should know you"__jason
Reba and I exchanged a few posts in the past. Can you tell me how Reba is doing these days? I hope she is well?
I have also exchanged a few posts with you, before this thread I mean, in months past. I remember you very well. Did you ever read my thread here titled "Being Forgiven"? Its heart-warming. I remember Reba liked that thread.
"hitch was rather blunt and crude and well disliked futurism."__jasonc
Sorry to hear that. That does not sound good for hitch.
- Thread starter
- #44
jasonc. thank you for your reply.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,878
- 8,142
This is the third time I have asked this question.
Could you please answer it?
Who do these names refer to?
King of kings
Lord of lords
Prince of peace
Mighty God
Wonderful
Lamb of God
The only begotten of the Father
The Word
The Messiah
The Christ
Emmanuel
The Alpha and Omega
The First and Last
The Holy One of Israel
None of the verses that carries these different names connect with one another.
JLB
JohnDB
Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 9,065
- 5,725
We really don't debate here. We will discuss things but there is no "winning" or trying to teach the others how "they are wrong and you are right here".
That kind of stuff is for the junk forums. I've never seen people do that kind of thing in any Church I've been to. We don't do that here.
We can discuss differences...but it's not relevant to the faith we hold dear.
It's a minor.
And if you hang out long enough there's things that we can teach each other.
I've already showed you holes in your knowledge...I know where mine are...but it's going to take several PHD research thesis to uncover what I wish to know.
(And I do know some of those guys)
But I'm grateful that there is no Beatitude stating "Blessed are the most theologically correct for they shall...."
- Thread starter
- #48
"We really don't debate here."__JohnDB
(1) I didn't know that cf.net took that position. My Opening Post was written for the purpose of engaging in civil debate among Christians who love each other and will debate the merits of the arguments in a spirit of love. If I had known that "We really don't debate here" was the policy, I would not have posted my Opening Post.
(2) My view is that it is impossible NOT to end up debating the merits of arguments unless you keep strictly to devotional subjects and prohibit any serious investigation of the dozens and dozens of subjects within Christendom that are controversial in nature.
(3) Regarding discussions of all controversial subjects: What happens in reality is that people actually end up debating, while calling it a discussion. A rose by another name is still a rose. And debate called discussion, is still a debate.
(4)Here is how I define debate:
debate - "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting . . . in which opposing arguments are put forward."
My view is that it is impossible to have an ongoing talk/discussion about the subject of an alleged future antichrist without debating the merits of the arguments that are put forward to support that belief.
(5) Clearly a debate is taking place in this thread. But you say "We really don't debate here"___JohnDB, therefore since that is the case, there is no point in me continuing because . . .
(6) My Opening Post demands debate. It demands debate because there are only two choices presented by my Opening Post; They are:
(A) There are clear and certain arguments that compellingly connect the 4 mentions of antichrist in John's epistles with other passages in Daniel, Ezekiel, Paul, the Book of Revelation, and other Bible verses . . . or . .
(B) There are NOT any clear and certain arguments that compellingly connect the 4 mentions of antichrist in John's epistles with other passages in Daniel, Ezekiel, Paul, the Book of Revelation, and other Bible verses.
(C) My view is that, so far, there has NOT been a single clear and certain argument advanced that connects the "antichrist" of John's epistles with any other Bible passage.
Does that mean that I am claiming victory? No. All that means is that my view is that, so far, there has not been presented, a single clear and certain argument that compellingly connects the 4 mentions of antichrist with any other Bible passage.
(7) I do not plan to continue my participation in this thread because I fully intend to abide by the rules, the expectations, and the spirit of cf.net. And I cannot do that, and discuss the subject of antichrist, if debate is prohibited or not welcomed at cf.net.
(8) I sincerely thank all the good folks here for taking the time to read my Opening Post. I always appreciate it when my fellow Christians take the time to read what I write. My motive, in everything I write, is to make a positive constructive contribution to the lives of other people. My view is that a civil debate can achieve that.
As an aside:
My wife and I just recently re-watched The Lord Of The Rings:
Quote For Today:
"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.” ___Tolkien
I have always liked J.R.R. Tolkien
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,878
- 8,142
JohnDB
Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 9,065
- 5,725
So have I.
He and CS Lewis were beer buddies.
Much of his stories were a blend of Christian themes and principles as played out (or not) in History.
Remember the section in the Hobbit where they were to travel through the forest...but not leave the path?
The movie didn't portray that section of the book correctly...the elves deliberately left the path. They knew what they were doing when they done it too. They just didn't plan on the results they got. One of my biggest pet peeves on that movie is that part. Otherwise I liked it.
Where I understand that you want to debate...we really aren't. We are here asking questions that you provide answers for that will clarify why you believe what you believe.
There is meat to our questions...there's a reason why we ask the questions we ask.
For you to believe what you believe surely has some basis and is congruent with your understanding of scriptures. And possibly you are right and possibly you are wrong.
It's not about winning or losing but understanding each other.
Most of my friends don't share in my theologies... doesn't mean that we aren't there for each other. I'm shouting support for their kids just as loud or louder than they are.
- Thread starter
- #51
Hello JLB,
All those names of the Lord Jesus appear in Biblical passages where the context within the passage presents clear, certain, and compelling arguments (reasons) to believe and KNOW that they all refer and connect to the Lord Jesus.
That is NOT the case in a single passage in Daniel, Ezekiel, Paul, the Book of Revelation, or any other passage in the Holy Bible. There is a complete absence of a single shred of clear and certain evidence (arguments and reasons) to connect John's 4 mentions of antichrist with any other Biblical passage. Search those passages and see if you can find a single hint of evidence that makes the connection. My view is that there is not a single whisper of evidence, not so much as even a tiny dot of evidence.
The "connection" is made by mere claim and mere proclamation. That means that people merely SAY that there is a connection. They issue a proclamation and say something like this: "The man of sin in 2 Thess 2:3 is the antichrist mentioned in John's 4 epistles." But they do NOT support their proclamation with a single clear, certain, and compelling argument (reason) to believe their proclamation is true. They merely assert that it is true.
Your question is designed to be an argument. Your question has the implication that because the names of the Lord Jesus are NOT connected, that means that the 4 mentions of antichrist in John can refer to characters in other books of the Bible.
Important point:
My view is that your comparison fails as an argument, because the names of the Lord Jesus ARE connected.
They ARE connected by the CONTEXT of the passages in which they appear. That means when you read the passage you can KNOW and be CERTAIN that the Biblical writer is referring to the Lord Jesus in every single passage. That is NOT true of a single Biblical passage that people claim is a reference to John's mention of "antichrist."
For example, when you read 2 Thess. 2:3 there is no evidence that the "man of sin" or the "man of lawlessness" mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:3 is connected in any way with the antichrists mentioned in the 4 verses in John's epistles. (Again, the same is true of ALL other Biblical passages that are alleged to refer to John's mention of "antichrist.")
Therefore my view is that your question does not constitute clear and certain evidence. My view is your question is not a successful argument that refutes the proposition in my Opening Post.
Also I just learned from JohnDB that "We really don't debate here."__JohnDB, so there is no point in my continued participation in this thread since it is impossible to discuss this subject without debating the merits of the arguments. In order for me to defend the proposition in my Opening Post, I MUST debate and argue in support of the proposition that says "There Are No Compelling Arguments For a Future Antichrist."
I do not know of a single argument that supports the notion of an alleged future Antichrist. It all rests 100% on mere assertion and mere proclamation.
JLB, I thank you for your interest in my Opening Post, and I hope that what I wrote there will stimulate an interest in the subject of the alleged future "antichrist" and that some good research can come from this thread. Some of you good folks here at cf.net may come to deepen your belief in a future antichrist because of my Opening Post. Some others may decide to do more research on the subject.
As I said up-thread there are 4 major views on the Christian future, they are:
(1) Postmillenialism,
(2) Amillenialism
(3) Premillenialism
(4) Dispensationalism
And all the born again Christians that hold to these opposing views of the Christian future, love the Lord even though they disagree and hold opposite views of what lies ahead for the human race and for the Christian Church.
This is interesting:
There have been many Christians in the past that have identified the antichrist.
Some of the people identified as being the antichrist were:
(1) Mikhail Gorbachev
(2) Pope Benedict XVl
(3) Hitler
(4) Benito Mussolini
(5) Nero
(6) Various other Popes of Roman Catholicism
(7) And there have been dozens of other historical figures that have been identified as the antichrist.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,878
- 8,142
So you agree all these different names that appear in different books of the Bible all refer to the Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s good.
We agree.
JLB
- Thread starter
- #54
"So have I. He and CS Lewis were beer buddies."___JohnDB
So true. And tobacco buddies too. Don't forget "Old Toby." /smile C.S. Lewis and Tolkien loved their beer and their tobacco while they fellowshipped around their books. They met in The Eagle And The Child pub and sometimes in Lewis's quarters.
I will talk to you about Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. I love to talk about them and The Inklings. As you know The Inklings were a literary society that met to discuss the literary works they were presently developing.
"Remember the section in the Hobbit where they were to travel through the forest...but not leave the path?"___John DB
Amazing! My wife and I watched that very scene last night. And here we are talking about it this morning a few hours later.
I have all 6 of the movies. The 3 Lord Of the Rings movies and the 3 Hobbit movies. We really enjoy them. And yes they have magnificent Christian themes.
"It's not about winning or losing but understanding each other."___JohnDB
I can understand that and appreciate that also.
More later . . .
`
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,878
- 8,142
Ok let’s examine what you say.
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
Please point out the clear, certain, and compelling arguments (reasons) to believe and KNOW that they all refer and connect to the Lord Jesus , in this passage, whereby every Jew who reads this knows for sure that this passage refers to the Lord Jesus Christ.
JLB
- Thread starter
- #56
I do agree. I agree in the context of my post # 51 to you. By the way, my post 51 to you had a "debate tone" to it. I don't know of any other way to defend the proposition in my Opening Post other than with a "debate tone." Don't take it personal. I am criticizing the argument, and NOT criticizing you (or anyone else.)
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,878
- 8,142
Ok.
No offense taken here.
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
Please point out the clear, certain, and compelling arguments (reasons) to believe and KNOW that they all refer and connect to the Lord Jesus , in this passage, whereby every Jew who reads this knows for sure that this passage refers to the Lord Jesus Christ.
JLB
- Thread starter
- #58
In my view your argument is this:
(1) Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to the Lord Jesus.
(2) Isaiah 9:6-7 does not mention the name of the Lord Jesus.
(3) THEREFORE the mere mention of antichrist, in John's epistles, DOES or CAN refer to other Biblical characters like the "beast" , the "false prophet, the "man of sin" etc
My view is that (1), (2), and (3) up there fails to demonstrate that the proposition of my Opening Post is false, which says: There Are No Compelling Arguments For A Future Antichrist.
The following are crucial facts that bear upon this subject and MUST be considered when comparing Isaiah 9:6-7 with John's brief mention of antichrists:
(A) The "antichrists" ( plural) of John's epistles lived in the first century in the time when John wrote his epistles.
(B) In John's epistles there were MANY antichrists, not just one antichrist. So this fact destroys the notion that the antichrist is a single individual that will appear in the future. (Add to this (A) up there that correctly says the antichrist of John's epistles lived in the first century.)
(C) The text of Isaiah 9:6-7 has details that could NOT possibly refer to any other than God the Father or some other member of the Holy Trinity. The brief 4 mentions of "antichrist" in John's epistles have absolutely nothing that connects them with any other character in the Bible. That is obviously NOT true for Isaiah 9:6-7, which clearly connects to a Divine Being. Note these particulars from Isaiah 9:6-7
(1) He will be called Mighty God
(2) He will be called Everlasting Father.
(3) Of the greatness of His government and peace there will BE NO END.
(4) He will reign on David's throne . . .with justice and righteousness . . .FOREVER.
(5) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given
The Christian Church has correctly reached the conclusion that these 5 statements present reasonable evidence that Isaiah 9:6-7 connects to the Lord Jesus.
Those 5 statements from Isaiah 9:6-7 have a certain and clear connection to a Divine Being (namely the Lord Jesus) that the 4 brief mentions of antichrist in John's epistles do not have -- which connects to absolutely nothing else.
In other words:
-- Isaiah 9:6-7 clearly and compellingly CONNECTS to a Divine Being and (for "unto us a son is given" tells us it is the Lord Jesus)
-- John's mention of antichrist connects to NOTHING else.
(D)The mere mention of antichrists in John's epistles have zero details that will permit a future antichrist. John's antichrists (plural) clearly refers to individuals living in the time of the first century.
Here is the entire passage of Isaiah 9:6-7
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7
- Thread starter
- #59
"No offense taken"__JLB
That's good. I'm glad.
By the way, I don't plan to "field questions" because of the time factor involved. That means that it takes a poster maybe 15 seconds to ask me a question that might take me 2 hours to research and answer. You can see that a mere 8 questions could tie up my entire day producing plausible answers to a poster's question.
Just one question, that I don't have an interest in answering, could tie up 2 or 3 hours of my time.
If my refusal to answer questions is taken to mean that I have lost the argument, then that is okay with me. I will cheerfully say, You Win!
There is another reason why I will not "field questions." Because of the personal interest element involved in this enormous subject of Christian Eschatology. I can be asked endless questions about subjects that are related to, for example, Postmillennialism, that I may have no interest in spending several hours researching in order to produce plausible answers.
All the above is the reason I wrote my Opening Post the way I did, namely to focus ONLY on the proposition title of my Opening Post and upon the other statements in my Opening Post.
And since I am not out to "win" the argument since we don't debate here, then I say again:
If my refusal to answer questions is taken to mean that I have lost the argument, or that I am refusing to participate in the discussion, then that is okay with me. I will cheerfully say, You are correct and/or You Win!
`
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #60
"And possibly you are right and possibly you are wrong. "__JohnDB
That is certainly true. Moreover, I don't claim to have all the answers, I don't even claim to have 25% of the answers. One of my favorite Bible verses is Deuteronomy 29:29 ---
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever . . ."
"It's not about winning or losing but understanding each other."___JohnDB
I'm a simple old soul to understand. My favorite Bible verses are John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8. I am a Baptist-type. My wife and I attend a Baptist Church that loves the Bill Gaither Homecoming style gospel music. We have an 80 member choir that can really touch your soul with their singing.
I love good wholesome movies. I love classical music. I listen to Andrea Bocelli and Luciano Pavarotti (now deceased) and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.
A while back, I loved Rambo type movies, but I got tired of all the killing. I mean its all so predictable. First they introduce you to the bad guys and show them doing terrible things to the good guys. This builds up a desire in the audience to see the bad guys "get what they deserve", which is usually a horrible gruesome death. The last Rambo movie I saw, the bad guy, at the end, got "gutted like a deer" and the audience clapped and cheered. They would have been glad if the scene had lasted 10 minutes instead of 25 seconds. I know what it is to hurt and suffer. I don't get any pleasure out of seeing the bad guys get what they deserve. I prefer stories about the "bad guys" who became "good guys" by God's Mercy and Grace.
I'm not a pacifist. I believe that World War ll was necessary, that the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists had to be stopped with military force. I believe The Allies were on the side of the good in the world.
"Most of my friends don't share in my theologies"___JohnDB
I hear ya! I talk to a lot of atheists on the web. That's not quite the same thing as you're talking about, but I mention it to make the point that even in the face of this horrible COVID-19 virus many Internet atheists blame the God they do not believe exists, for not preventing this pandemic, and they post awful insults upon Him for not preventing it.
In another vein:
There are some Christian Churches that are still meeting together and shaking hands and hugging each other and a significant number of their members are getting infected with the COVID-19 virus. Our church has discontinued services and has gone to streaming the sermons.
I'm just being chatty with all that up there.