antichrist

JM · Apr 10, 2013

Any further thoughts on the subject?

I was surprised Johnny Mac held to the classic Reformed position.

gord44 · Apr 10, 2013

My guess is it is Nero. The author seems to be fired up about Rome. He just saw Jerusalem sacked and the temple destroyed. Who knows. I don't really know what to make of revelation most of the time.

JM · Apr 10, 2013

Revelation is a tough read and I'm not sure exactly how to draw a conclusion from the imagery in the text.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Apr 10, 2013

JM said:
Any further thoughts on the subject?

I was surprised Johnny Mac held to the classic Reformed position.

Yes, The Preterist/Futurist debate is very dependent on the dating of Revelation. Preterists almost uniformly call for an early dating --around 65-66 AD. Futurists generally prefer a later dating --around AD 95.

There are merits and disadvantages to both positions, but i do prefer the earlier date. If John the Apostle is the human author, then he would have been very, very old in AD 95. Perhaps he was not even among the oxygen breathing at that date.

There is also the earthquake that hit and destroyed Laodicea in AD 60 - 66 (the references are inconsistent about the exact date).

JM · Apr 11, 2013

I just borrowed a copy of James Durham's Commentary on Revelation. I've heard good things about it.

JM · Apr 13, 2013

I will try to blog a few choice quotes from Durham as I read: Feileadh Mor

All Souls · Apr 13, 2013

Kenneth Gentry is the go-to guy for a Reformed perspective on this.

I generally prefer a more scholarly approach, try Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham

JM · Apr 13, 2013

All Souls said:
Kenneth Gentry is the go-to guy for a Reformed perspective on this.

I generally prefer a more scholarly approach, try Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham

Thanks All Souls but I have to admit...the Preterist perspective is a little too vogue for me, the Futurist perspective a little too confused, overly complicated and lacks biblical support. I recognize problems with Historicism as well but they do not affect the core beliefs of Historicism and that is Christ will overcome false superstitious religion, that religion which mixes faith with works and pretends to be Christian.

Durham is really all I can handle right now. His devotional style is drawing me into the text and causing me to think deeper about it.

jm

Osage Bluestem · Apr 13, 2013

JM said:
Thanks All Souls but I have to admit...the Preterist perspective is a little too vogue for me, the Futurist perspective a little too confused, overly complicated and lacks biblical support. I recognize problems with Historicism as well but they do not affect the core beliefs of Historicism and that is Christ will overcome false superstitious religion, that religion which mixes faith with works and pretends to be Christian.

Durham is really all I can handle right now. His devotional style is drawing me into the text and causing me to think deeper about it.

jm

I have to admit that I really have no position on the antichrist. I know I don't know anything other than I know I'm ignorant. Thank God for that certainty at least.

gord44 · Apr 13, 2013

Osage Bluestem said:
I have to admit that I really have no position on the antichrist. I know I don't know anything other than I know I'm ignorant. Thank God for that certainty at least.

Hehe. I agree. I have a pretty unorthodox view of revelation though. But as you said, I am ignorant, and that can be a mercy.

JM · Apr 13, 2013

Scripture is a good place to start.

Some encouragement to read Revelation:

The power of God’s revealed word:

“We need not stand upon the Authority, nor Title of it that holds out the Penman; it being of such a divine stamp and Majesty, doth carry Authority in the bosom of it, that if any Scripture hold forth the Sovereignty, Majesty, Justice, Mercy and Truth of God, to the comfort of His People, and the making the hearts of His Enemies to quake, this Scripture doth it.”

The blessing in it:

“We have the commendation of this Book, ver. 3 to stir up folks to make use of it, because He knew many would be scare at it, and be ready to let it lie besides them as useless and unprofitable; whereas all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable, etc. 2 Tim. 3.16. Therefore this is added, Blessed is he that readeth; that is, this Book is not a thing to be spoken of only, and not to be read and studied: for, the Seal of it are opened; and blessed are they that read it. It’s a happy and a good thing, soberly and humbly to read, and to seek to understand it:”

- from James Durham’s “Commentary Upon The Book of the Revelation”

The Reformers and Reformed confessions are a good place to start. They did get the Gospel right, so they might not be too far off on the rest of it...even if they are slightly.

The Soul and Essence of Antichrist if false religion pretending to be Christian, when it is nothing more than a system of apostasy.

Osage Bluestem · Apr 13, 2013

JM said:
Scripture is a good place to start.

Some encouragement to read Revelation:

The power of God's revealed word:

"We need not stand upon the Authority, nor Title of it that holds out the Penman; it being of such a divine stamp and Majesty, doth carry Authority in the bosom of it, that if any Scripture hold forth the Sovereignty, Majesty, Justice, Mercy and Truth of God, to the comfort of His People, and the making the hearts of His Enemies to quake, this Scripture doth it."

The blessing in it:

"We have the commendation of this Book, ver. 3 to stir up folks to make use of it, because He knew many would be scare at it, and be ready to let it lie besides them as useless and unprofitable; whereas all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable, etc. 2 Tim. 3.16. Therefore this is added, Blessed is he that readeth; that is, this Book is not a thing to be spoken of only, and not to be read and studied: for, the Seal of it are opened; and blessed are they that read it. It's a happy and a good thing, soberly and humbly to read, and to seek to understand it:"

- from James Durham's "Commentary Upon The Book of the Revelation"

The Reformers and Reformed confessions are a good place to start. They did get the Gospel right, so they might not be too far off on the rest of it...even if they are slightly.

The Soul and Essence of Antichrist if false religion pretending to be Christian, when it is nothing more than a system of apostasy.

I don't understand revelation.

JM · Apr 13, 2013

Osage Bluestem said:
I don't understand revelation.

Hey brother, I mentioned Pastor Mencarow's sermons before on Revelation, excellent all around. They were and continue to be a good resource as I navigate Revelation. He offers a historical analysis of the Protestant position. He is confessional and solidly Reformed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7533305/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7483435/#post55250921

http://www.christianforums.com/t7662009-2/#post60717825

I think folks have a problem with the Historicist interpretation because they jump in at Rev. 9 or 13 and say to themselves, "that can't be true." It is important to build from the beginning of the book.

If you have any direct questions, I can try (try), to answer them. It would be good for me and a blessing.

Iron sharpens iron.

j

twin1954 · Apr 13, 2013

JM, have you read Don Fortners commentary on Revelation?
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/Don Fortner/DF_Discovering Christ In Revelation.pdf

JM · Apr 13, 2013

twin1954 said:
JM, have you read Don Fortners commentary on Revelation?
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/Don Fortner/DF_Discovering Christ In Revelation.pdf

I have not but I did read the follow and was encouraged:

Many Antichrists

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. (vv. 24-26).

There are many antichrists in this world (1 John 4:1-4). I have no problem at all in stating, as our forefathers did in great faithfulness, that the pope is antichrist and the church of Rome is antichrist. I do not mean that is the way it used to be. I mean that his unholiness, the pope, is antichrist. Roman Catholicism is antichrist. That fact cannot be stated too often, or too emphatically.

However, it is a serious mistake to limit antichrist to one man, or one religious sect. Antichrist was already at work in the Apostolic age. John said many antichrists had gone out into the world. Paul had to contend with antichrists at Galatia, Colosse, Corinth, and Jerusalem. 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 3 describes antichrist as the man of sin, the son of perdition. Antichrist isone who opposes God, exalts himself above God, and/or sits himself up in the temple of God to be worshipped as God, showing that he is God.

That is to say, antichrist is any system of religion, any man, any preacher, any church, any denomination that makes salvation to be dependent upon or determined by the will, works, and worth of man, rather than the will, works, and worth of Christ. It does not matter whether that system of religion is conservative or liberal, a mainline Protestant Church or a wild cult, Baptist or Methodist, Pentecostal or Presbyterian. Any church, doctrine, preacher, or religious system that makes man the center-piece is antichrist.

Let me be understood. Those who teach that Gods will can be altered, hindered, or thwarted by mans will, are, according to Colossians 2, will worshippers, not God worshippers. They are antichrists. Those who teach that the merit and efficacy of Christs atonement resides in mans will, mans decision, and mans faith are antichrists. Those who teach that the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit may be successfully resisted by man are antichrists. Those who teach that grace can be forfeited or taken away as the result of something a man does are antichrists.

Any religion, any doctrine, any gospel that turns you away from looking to Christ alone as your Savior is antichrist. A Christ who loves but cannot save is a useless Christ, an antichrist. A Christ who redeems but does not save is a useless Christ, an antichrist. A Christ who calls but does not convert is a useless Christ, an antichrist. A Christ whose work depends upon the will or work of the sinner to make it effectual and complete is a useless Christ, an antichrist. A Christ who wills the salvation of any who are not actually saved by his power is a useless Christ, an antichrist. - Don Fortner

All Souls · Apr 14, 2013

JM said:
Thanks All Souls but I have to admit...the Preterist perspective is a little too vogue for me, the Futurist perspective a little too confused, overly complicated and lacks biblical support. I recognize problems with Historicism as well but they do not affect the core beliefs of Historicism and that is Christ will overcome false superstitious religion, that religion which mixes faith with works and pretends to be Christian.

Durham is really all I can handle right now. His devotional style is drawing me into the text and causing me to think deeper about it.

jm

That is fair enough, though having been written in 1680 it is somewhat outdated. Do have a check out of the following:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/119-04_297.pdf
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/120-02_159.pdf
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/120-03_247.pdf

JM · Apr 14, 2013

It seems I may have hurt your feelings with my comment that preterism is vogue right now.

I apologize. That was not my intention.

Preterism was rejected by the majority of Reformed Christians, scholars, biblical commentators, confession authors, etc. for about 400 years so my comment, that it is now vogue, was based on this understanding.

If you look around the net for commentaries recommended by Reformed folks James Durham is in the top 10 or even tops the list. It seems his ability to explain the text and bring Christ to the forefront is still valued and others may not share your opinion.

If you have never read it you may want to reserve judgement on whether it is out of date or not, it is a little presumptuous to assume based on age, that it is...

jm

All Souls · Apr 16, 2013

You didn't hurt my feelings

bsd058 · Apr 16, 2013

One thing that will definitely help your studies on the Antichrist is studying the dating of the book of Revelation. Even just spending a week (or a month or whatever you feel is adequate) reading data from libraries in your area (preferably university libraries where they can referee quality) and building a case for a date of the book. This will assist you a lot in ruling out certain stances on the subject, or it will possibly help affirm them.

University libraries usually don't cost a lot to have access to.

gord44 · Apr 16, 2013

the dating of the book of Revelation lead me to conclude (not trying to convince, just something that sticks out at me) is that John of Patmos is probably not the Apostle John. And that much of the imagery in Revelation is referring to the Roman Empire and the anger directed at them as they just destroyed the temple and Jerusalem sacked.

Revelation pretty much boils down to me as Rev 21:4.

antichrist

Confessional Free Catholic

Well-Known Member

Confessional Free Catholic

Regular Member

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

All Souls

Guest

Confessional Free Catholic

Galatians 5:1

Well-Known Member

Confessional Free Catholic

Galatians 5:1

Confessional Free Catholic

Baptist by the Bible

Confessional Free Catholic

All Souls

Guest

Confessional Free Catholic

All Souls

Guest

Sola and Tota Scripturist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency