- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Some of them indeed did. But most of them were not called to go that far.
Upvote
0
Eschatology for dummies :)
- Thread starter worshipjunkie
- Start date
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
What you are trying to do in disagreeing with James (Biblewriter) is to prove that you are right on the basis who is the bigger martyr. That is not rationally driven argument, but an emotionally driven argument. And at the heart of your argument is whoever is the most sincere is right. But sincerity is not the issue. Truth is. Can the Pope/Papacy be the Antichrist? And the answer using the bible as basis for argument is "no".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You were the first to mention martyrs.
You also ignored my question, so here it is again:
Are they (i.e. Muslims) martyrs for the cause of Christ and His Church?
The Reformers used the Bible as their basis for recognizing antichrist.
Their diagnosis of the apostate papacy was unerringly accurate, as the historical and prophetic records and results confirm.
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
No, you were in your posts #94, 96, 100.
I didn't answer your question because you are going off on a tangent, and the answer is obvious.
We are not talking about "antichrist" but the Antichrist. The reformers claimed the Pope/papacy was the Antichrist.
Adolph Hitler, you could say was a evil, wicked man - but he was not the Antichrist. The Popes who killed, persecuted, and tortured them who did not submit to them - the same could be said. That the Popes claim to be the spokesman for Jesus here on earth during His not physically being here is a lie. But that alone does not make the Pope the Antichrist.
______________________________________________________________________________
The problem is that you (and nearly everyone) are using the word the Antichrist to represent the arch villain of the bible in all his roles.
Which, contrary what is embedded in your mind, being the Antichrist is only one role of the person's many roles in the bible. And being in that one role as the Antichrist is only for while the Jews are believing that he is their King of Israel messiah.
Upvote
0
The word "martyr" appears in none of those posts.
Your introduction of "Islam" was the tangent. If the answer is obvious, why couldn't you provide it?
John Calvin (1509 - 1564)
"Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before."
Thomas Cranmer (1489 - 1556)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself."
Charles Spurgeon (1834 - 1892)
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description."
There is no "the" prefix in front of these Antichrists.
The Reformers used "antichrist", "Antichrist", "the antichrist", and "the Antichrist" synonymously and interchangeably.
They recognized that the apostate papacy was the predominant antichrist of their era, but not the one and only antichrist of all time. Unlike today's dispensationalists and futurites, they understood the descriptions of antichrists in John's epistles.
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
But it is what is implied.
What is the specific bible passage being referred to?
What is the specific bible passage being referred to?
What is the specific bible passage is being use as the reference against the pope?
But Antichrist is capitalized, meaning it is talking about the Antichrist. That the word "the" is not there is because they are referring to the papacy being the Antichrist. In other words, every pope is the Antichrist. "popery".
The Reformers did not understand the concept of the coming Antichrist that John spoke of in 1John2:18.
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.
John was not talking about the Pope. Them in John's day has a understanding of what Antichrist meant. Because they were aware that Jesus was the rightful King of Israel messiah, descended from David, coming in the name of the Lord - Who was rejected by his own people and crucified. Which was fresh in their minds because they lived during that period. Which that understanding has been lost to later generations in great part by the Reformers, and continued by them who likewise have lost the meaning.
John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
John 12:12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
It is the same John who wrote those things down - who was speaking to them in 1John2:18 about the coming Antichrist.
The pope/papacy is not qualified to be the King of Israel that the Jews will embrace as their King of Israel messiah... but is not the one God sent to be their King of Israel messiah.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Scripture references:
John Calvin
To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, alter whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God.
Thomas Cranmer
And thus he sitteth in the temple of God, as if he were a God, and nameth himself God's vicar, and yet he dispenseth against God. If this be not to play antichrist's part, I cannot tell what is antichrist, which is no more to say but Christ's enemy and adversary, who shall sit in the temple of God, advancing himself above all other, yet by hypocrisy and feigned religion shall subvert the true religion of Christ, and under pretence and colour of christian religion shall work against Christ, and therefore hath the name of antichrist.
Charles Spurgeon
Behold upon her forehead the name, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. The Church of Rome and her teachings are a vast mountain of rubbish covering the Truth of God! For weary years good men could not get at the Foundation because of this very much rubbish.
I've now provided, over multiple posts, more than ample evidence for the Reformation convictions regarding antichrist. The sacrifices and fates of those who believed and proclaimed those truths are thoroughly and compellingly documented in the historical record. They number, very conservatively, in the many thousands.
The true Christian Church owes them an unrepayable debt.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
This is what I am talking about. The Reformers and most people nowadays consider "the Antichrist" term as applying to the person over all his roles - rather than as only when he is embraced by the Jews as their King of Israel messiah. The reference is obviously to 2Thessalonians2:4. But the term Antichrist is not in that passage.
Obviously, referring to Revelation 17:5-6. But, the Antichrist is not in Revelation 17. What is in Revelation 17 is the beast - which I as I am saying to you is that the Reformers were using the Antichrist term incorrectly to call the person that for all his roles. The person will no longer be the Antichrist when he becomes the beast.
Again, referring to 2Thesslaonians2:4. Which the person is moving into the role of revealed man of sin.
Here is the mind set of the Reformers:
Antichrist
the revealed man of sin
the beast
Instead, they should have been thinking:
Arch villain of the end times:
the little horn person who becomes...
the prince who shall come, who becomes...
the Antichrist, who becomes...
the revealed man of sin, who becomes...
the beast.
... the reformers didn't understand the concept of the Antichrist.
Upvote
0
You are correct that "antichrist" does not appear in the cited passages.
But the definition of "antichrist" which I cited earlier, and which includes a historical meaning dating back to that era as seen in the example citing "antipope", encompasses the description in, e.g., 2 Thessalonians 2. The Reformers used "antichrist" generically to represent all of the descriptions associated with it in various scriptures.
anti-
/ˈan(t)ē,ˈanˌtī/
prefix
prefix: anti-; prefix: ant-
- opposed to; against.
- acting as a rival.
"antipope"
Their understanding was intact, correct, and effective.
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
No, their understanding of the concept of the Antichrist was not correct, because they did not make the connection of "the Christ" as being the King of Israel, who came in the name of the Lord.
The definition you "Anti" that you gave is partial. The other part of that definition is "instead of".
jgr, go to my post #15 and #16, so you can start seeing how the prophecies about the arch villain of the end times work.
The little horn
_________________________________________________________
jgr, your bible is written in this sequence.
Daniel 7
Daniel 9
1John2:18
2Thessalonians2:4
Revelation 13
The roles of the arch villain of the end times, his path follows that same sequence.
little horn
prince who shall come
the Antichrist
the revealed man of sin
the beast
Then, start finding out what would be expected of the person in each of those roles
Last edited:
Upvote
0
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Scripture does not infer that Antichrust is king of the Jews, No where. Antichrists were those who went out from the church, no doubt by teaching false doctines,. but still claiming to be Christians. Antichrist would be the same. The popes claim to be christian, but have departed far from the faith, ruling over a competely idol based system.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
While I agree with the others, the prince who was to come has nothing to do with Antichrist, In fact scriture doesn't say he will do anything. It was his people that were to destroy the temple. This was fulfilled in AD 70 when the armies of Titus destroyed the temple against his orders. The people of the prince who was to come did destroy the temple.
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
David,
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
All you have to do is put Anti in front of...Christ the King of Israel
__________________________________________________________
The pope/papacy is not qualified to be the King of Israel. No pope was ever embraced by the Jews to be their King of Israel.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,781
- 3,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
David, the prince who shall come was not Titus. The Romans were responsible for the destruction of the city and sanctuary, I agree on that point though.
The prince who shall come is end times. The little horn person after he becomes the king (leader) of the end time Roman Empire will then become the prince who shall come. His path of roles follow the books of the bible, in sequence, as information on him has been revealed over time. Daniel 7, then Daniel 9, then 1John2:18, the 2Thessalonians2:4, then Revelation 13.
go to my post #15 and #16 in the little horn thread, so you can start seeing how the prophecies about the arch villain of the end times work.
The little horn
arch villain of the end times
little horn, who becomes
prince who shall come, who then becomes
the Antichrist, who then becomes
the revealed man of sin, who then becomes
the beast
Last edited:
Upvote
0
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
David, the prince who shall come was not Titus. The Romans were responsible for the destruction of the city and sanctuary, I agree on that point though.
The prince who shall come is end times. The little horn person after he becomes the king (leader) of the end time Roman Empire will then become the prince who shall come. His path of roles follow the books of the bible, in sequence, as information on him has been revealed over time. Daniel 7, then Daniel 9, then 1John2:18, the 2Thessalonians2:4, then Revelation 13.
go to my post #15 and #16 in the little horn thread, so you can start seeing how the prophecies about the arch villain of the end times work.
The little horn
arch villain of the end times
little horn, who becomes
prince who shall come, who then becomes
the Antichrist, who then becomes
the revealed man of sin, who then becomes
the beast
No matter how much you try, however many charts you or others show, it is not thrue. Titus did come and his people did destroy the city and the temple. Thye Antichrist is cot mentiontioned in Daniel. It is not about somne future coming prince. You are putting yourself in the position of unbelieving Jews who attibuted the works of Jesus to satan, when you attribute Jesus' confirming the Covenant to Antichrist.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Interpreting Revelation Literally
Posted on July 5, 2017
A questioner recently asked how historicists respond to people who claim we aren’t interpreting the book of Revelation (or the Bible) literally. I think this question comes up mainly from those who have been influenced by a dispensational understanding of Bible prophecy (e.g. John MacArthur, Jack VanImpe, John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, John Walvoord, John Darby, C.I. Scofield and The Scofield Reference Bible, The Ryrie Study Bible, etc.). I also think that when many well-trained dispensational scholars talk about the importance of a literal interpretation, they make a good point. I think amillennial scholars often make some pretty big mistakes in the way they handle Scripture. Amillennialism is usually accompanied by the idea that Old Testament prophecies about the Jews are not really about the Jews at all, but about the “spiritual Israel”, i.e., the Christian Church. They get there by spiritualizing a lot of Old Testament prophecy, and Revelation, and their hermeneutical method then becomes more or less allegorical. So when responding to allegorical and spiritualized interpretations of prophecy, I sympathize with the concern of the dispensationalists: a literal hermeneutic is important.
But what do I mean by “literal”? When someone says he takes the Bible literally, we need to double check what he means by that. If he means, for example, that Solomon in the Song of Solomon likes women with teeth that look like sheep (Song 4:2), then he doesn’t know how to read the Bible, much less any book containing multiple kinds of writing (i.e. literary genres). For example, when Joshua says that the sun stood still, he does not mean to convey that the sun ordinarily moves around, but that it appeared from his point of view that the sun held its position in the sky. (see here for more on that)
If someone says they take Revelation literally, and they mean they don’t think Revelation uses symbols to communicate, then I like to ask what they think of Revelation 1:20?
As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
(Rev. 1:20 ESV)
Jesus says there that the stars = angels of churches and that lampstands = churches. So if someone interprets Revelation literally, one should then literally follow Jesus’ example and interpret the meaning of each symbol as equivalent to real, historical things: stars = angels, lampstands = churches. (And as we read further in Revelation, and observe the allusions to Old Testament passages, we also learn that beasts = empires/kingdoms, crowns = rulership, seas = the population of the nations, land/earth = one Kingdom in particular, the Roman Empire, etc.) Moreover, when John was told in Revelation 1:1 that this vision was “signified” to him (KJV), it literally means communicated in signs or symbols. (The Greek word is semaino, which Friberg’s Lexicon gives as “σημαίνω impf. ἐσήμαινον; 1aor. ἐσήμανα; with a basic meaning intentionally produce an impression to signal or signify something;…” It is used 5 other times in the New Testament: John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19; Acts 11:28, 25:27. In all but one of these instances the point is to communicate some meaning by some kind of sign—the Acts 11 passage is ambiguous.)
In other words, if a book like Revelation literally says it uses symbols that are meant to represent other things, then to interpret that book literally means one should keep interpreting it according to that principle. This is what is meant when someone says he interprets according to the type of writing that it is: poetry should be interpreted as poetry, historical narrative as historical narrative (Genesis for example), and symbolic (apocalyptic) prophecy as symbolic. My old Bible college professor was fond of repeating that it would be silly to interpret the Bible literally (and he was a dispensationalist!), but that we must interpret the Bible literarily (each part according its literary genre).
For more help on this topic check out “The Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy” by Dr. Oral Collins.
Post navigation
Historicism.com
Posted on July 5, 2017
A questioner recently asked how historicists respond to people who claim we aren’t interpreting the book of Revelation (or the Bible) literally. I think this question comes up mainly from those who have been influenced by a dispensational understanding of Bible prophecy (e.g. John MacArthur, Jack VanImpe, John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, John Walvoord, John Darby, C.I. Scofield and The Scofield Reference Bible, The Ryrie Study Bible, etc.). I also think that when many well-trained dispensational scholars talk about the importance of a literal interpretation, they make a good point. I think amillennial scholars often make some pretty big mistakes in the way they handle Scripture. Amillennialism is usually accompanied by the idea that Old Testament prophecies about the Jews are not really about the Jews at all, but about the “spiritual Israel”, i.e., the Christian Church. They get there by spiritualizing a lot of Old Testament prophecy, and Revelation, and their hermeneutical method then becomes more or less allegorical. So when responding to allegorical and spiritualized interpretations of prophecy, I sympathize with the concern of the dispensationalists: a literal hermeneutic is important.
But what do I mean by “literal”? When someone says he takes the Bible literally, we need to double check what he means by that. If he means, for example, that Solomon in the Song of Solomon likes women with teeth that look like sheep (Song 4:2), then he doesn’t know how to read the Bible, much less any book containing multiple kinds of writing (i.e. literary genres). For example, when Joshua says that the sun stood still, he does not mean to convey that the sun ordinarily moves around, but that it appeared from his point of view that the sun held its position in the sky. (see here for more on that)
If someone says they take Revelation literally, and they mean they don’t think Revelation uses symbols to communicate, then I like to ask what they think of Revelation 1:20?
As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
(Rev. 1:20 ESV)
Jesus says there that the stars = angels of churches and that lampstands = churches. So if someone interprets Revelation literally, one should then literally follow Jesus’ example and interpret the meaning of each symbol as equivalent to real, historical things: stars = angels, lampstands = churches. (And as we read further in Revelation, and observe the allusions to Old Testament passages, we also learn that beasts = empires/kingdoms, crowns = rulership, seas = the population of the nations, land/earth = one Kingdom in particular, the Roman Empire, etc.) Moreover, when John was told in Revelation 1:1 that this vision was “signified” to him (KJV), it literally means communicated in signs or symbols. (The Greek word is semaino, which Friberg’s Lexicon gives as “σημαίνω impf. ἐσήμαινον; 1aor. ἐσήμανα; with a basic meaning intentionally produce an impression to signal or signify something;…” It is used 5 other times in the New Testament: John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19; Acts 11:28, 25:27. In all but one of these instances the point is to communicate some meaning by some kind of sign—the Acts 11 passage is ambiguous.)
In other words, if a book like Revelation literally says it uses symbols that are meant to represent other things, then to interpret that book literally means one should keep interpreting it according to that principle. This is what is meant when someone says he interprets according to the type of writing that it is: poetry should be interpreted as poetry, historical narrative as historical narrative (Genesis for example), and symbolic (apocalyptic) prophecy as symbolic. My old Bible college professor was fond of repeating that it would be silly to interpret the Bible literally (and he was a dispensationalist!), but that we must interpret the Bible literarily (each part according its literary genre).
For more help on this topic check out “The Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy” by Dr. Oral Collins.
Post navigation
Historicism.com
Upvote
0
Similar threads
