Try this instead...

[jgr]

It is something that happened on a massive scale due to the wickedness of the popes and hierarchy on down to the lowest ranks who carried out the evil.

But you are conflating the issue of the reformers not understanding the concept of the Antichrist.

They understood it completely. They were living in the midst of it, and dying at the hands of it.

None have ever understood it better.

 

[BABerean2]

They both have error concerning the concept of the Antichrist.

So do you, because you have cut 1 John 2:22-23, and 2 John 1:7-11, and Revelation 2:9, and Revelation 3:9, and Revelation 11:8, out of your Bible.


.

 

[Douggg]

So do you, because you have cut 1 John 2:22-23, and 2 John 1:7-11, and Revelation 2:9, and Revelation 3:9, and Revelation 11:8, out of your Bible.
.

Are you trying to communicate something that you believe with those verses?

 

[BABerean2]

Are you trying to communicate something that you believe with those verses?

It is God who is communicating what is written in those verses, based on Romans 2:28-29.


.

 

[Timtofly]

Re-incarnation means bringing someone's soul back to be born into a second life. Transmigration of the soul. What makes you think Satan has that sort of power? And evidence of Satan having done it in the past.

Who for certain has the power to bring persons back to life? God does. Isaiah 14:19-20.

It does not have to be the same soul. How would Satan prove it is the same soul? All Satan has to prove is the same personality. There are many who claim reincarnation works. Do you think those claims are actually reality? Reincarnation is the false teaching that replaces biblical resurrection. Reincarnation is the evolution theory of new life. It is the exact same theory of biological life. Reincarnation is the evolutionary theory of spiritual life.

 

[Douggg]

It is God who is communicating what is written in those verses, based on Romans 2:28-29.


.

You are in evasive mode. Let me know when you come back to planet earth.

 

[Douggg]

They understood it completely. They were living in the midst of it, and dying at the hands of it.

None have ever understood it better.

jgr, please go to this thread...

The coming antichrist person, John wrote about, and concept of

 

[jgr]

jgr, please go to this thread...

The coming antichrist person, John wrote about, and concept of

Douggg, the efficacy of the Reformation understanding and doctrine of antichrist in the spiritual liberation of the true Church is beyond dispute. The success of the Reformation speaks for itself.

That efficacy was so overwhelming that it drove the papal antichrist to attempt to counter it by commissioning the Jesuit Francisco Ribera to produce a counterfeit deception of a future antichrist.

His effort was thankfully futile for 200 years.

For the past nearly two centuries, however, his effort has been overwhelmingly successful in futurism's embrace of his deception.

There is not one jot or tittle of the Reformation understanding and doctrine of antichrist that resembles what you propose.

Had it so resembled, the Reformation would have been a spectacular failure.

Thankfully, by God's grace, mercy, and assistance, it was not.

This forum and your presence on it is unassailable testimony to that reality.

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, the efficacy of the Reformation understanding and doctrine of antichrist in the spiritual liberation of the true Church is beyond dispute. The success of the Reformation speaks for itself.

That efficacy was so overwhelming that it drove the papal antichrist to attempt to counter it by commissioning the Jesuit Francisco Ribera to produce a counterfeit deception of a future antichrist.

His effort was thankfully futile for 200 years.

For the past nearly two centuries, however, his effort has been overwhelmingly successful in futurism's embrace of his deception.

There is not one jot or tittle of the Reformation understanding and doctrine of antichrist that resembles what you propose.

Had it so resembled, the Reformation would have been a spectacular failure.

Thankfully, by God's grace, mercy, and assistance, it was not.

This forum and your presence on it is unassailable testimony to that reality.

jgr,

John wrote the epistle of 1John in the first century. Before the RCC, before the papacy, before the reformation, before the Jesuits, before Covenant theology.

John and his fellow Christians were aware that antichrist shall come, before John wrote his letter.. A singular person.

The only biblical basis they had for the concept they had about that one singular person - is that he comes in his own name. And that he is instead of and against, the Christ, the King of Israel, who came in the name of the Lord.

The antichrist is one single person who will be anointed the King of Israel, but coming in his own name.

Irrespective of the Reformers, the Jesuits, the Covenant theologists, the dispensationalists, the Seventh Day Adventists, etc.... all of whom came after John wrote the epistle.

The Pope is not qualified to be the antichrist because he is not qualified to be anointed the King of Israel. Wrong religion, and is not a Jew. The Mahdi for the same reason.
Donald Trump for the same reason.

The anitchrist is one single person. John emphasized that there is one single person antichrist that John and his fellow Christians were aware of that shall come, by saying even now there are many antichrists - persons displaying the traits of the antichrist. Which are fore shadows of that one specific person.

There is not one jot or tittle of the Reformation understanding and doctrine of antichrist that resembles what you propose.

That's my point. They did not go by the original concept of the antichrist which John and his fellow Christians had. The reformers created their own version of the antichrist. Their version is wrong. As are the many other versions people have come up with - that departs from John and his fellow Christians concept of the antichrist.

That doesn't mean that the reformers were wrong about the evil nature of the popes, the Vatican, and all them involved in carrying out that evil. And the need to break away and out from under that system.

But don't conflate the true concept of the antichrist with the reformation. Don't let covenant theology's war against dispensationalism's theology cloud the issue.

It is all about the first century, the concept that John and his fellow Christians had of the antichrist.

 

[jgr]

jgr,

John wrote the epistle of 1John in the first century. Before the RCC, before the papacy, before the reformation, before the Jesuits, before Covenant theology.

John and his fellow Christians were aware that antichrist shall come, before John wrote his letter.. A singular person.

The only biblical basis they had for the concept they had about that one singular person - is that he comes in his own name. And that he is instead of and against, the Christ, the King of Israel, who came in the name of the Lord.

The antichrist is one single person who will be anointed the King of Israel, but coming in his own name.

Irrespective of the Reformers, the Jesuits, the Covenant theologists, the dispensationalists, the Seventh Day Adventists, etc.... all of whom came after John wrote the epistle.

The Pope is not qualified to be the antichrist because he is not qualified to be anointed the King of Israel. Wrong religion, and is not a Jew. The Mahdi for the same reason.
Donald Trump for the same reason.

The anitchrist is one single person. John emphasized that there is one single person antichrist that John and his fellow Christians were aware of that shall come, by saying even now there are many antichrists - persons displaying the traits of the antichrist. Which are fore shadows of that one specific person.



That's my point. They did not go by the original concept of the antichrist which John and his fellow Christians had. The reformers created their own version of the antichrist. Their version is wrong. As are the many other versions people have come up with - that departs from John and his fellow Christians concept of the antichrist.

That doesn't mean that the reformers were wrong about the evil nature of the popes, the Vatican, and all them involved in carrying out that evil. And the need to break away and out from under that system.

But don't conflate the true concept of the antichrist with the reformation. Don't let covenant theology's war against dispensationalism's theology cloud the issue.

It is all about the first century, the concept that John and his fellow Christians had of the antichrist.

The spiritual discernment, faith, vision, sacrifice, and success of the Reformation and its doctrine of antichrist stand.

Its reality is immutable and indisputable.

No futurist fantasy or fallacy will ever change it.

It is perfectly appropriate, and in fact essential, to conflate a doctrine with its results.

The Reformation doctrine of antichrist was corroborated by its results.

Futurism's doctrine of antichrist is corroborated by nothing.

It is a nullity, and will remain so until corroborated by results.

Results which will remain fantasy, and ultimately prove to be fallacy.

 

[Douggg]

It is perfectly appropriate, and in fact essential, to conflate a doctrine with its results.

The Reformation doctrine of antichrist was corroborated by its results.

No, the results of the reformation does not corroborate their concept of the antichrist.

No more than the Muslim's control of the temple mount for centuries corroborates Islam's doctrine about Jesus - not being crucified and not being God, nor the Son of God.

Futurism's doctrine of antichrist is corroborated by nothing.

It is a nullity, and will remain so until corroborated by results.

Results which will remain fantasy, and ultimately prove to be fallacy.

It is not "futurism's" doctrine. It did not begin with futurist's theologians.

Your circuit breaker has kicked in, the world view war covenant theology has on dispensationalism.

John and his fellow Christians concept of the antichrist is first century. And the only true concept of the antichrist.

 

[jgr]

No more than the Muslim's control of the temple mount for centuries corroborates Islam's doctrine about Jesus - not being crucified and not being God, nor the Son of God.

The choice:

1. Islamic doctrine in the Koran.
2. Reformation doctrine in Scripture.

Easiest decision ever.

It is not "futurism's" doctrine. It did not begin with futurist's theologians.

It began with Francisco Ribera, the Jesuit father of futurism.

John and his fellow Christians concept of the antichrist is first century. And the only true concept of the antichrist.

John's true concept recognized plural extant antichrists. Futurism's false concept does not.

 

[Douggg]

It began with Francisco Ribera, the Jesuit father of futurism.

Did Ribera or any Jesuit live at the time of John and his fellow Christians? No. So don't go down the war path that covenant theology has against dispensationalism. The concept of the antichrist began in John's day.

John's true concept recognized plural extant antichrists. Futurism's false concept does not.

John and his fellow Christians were knowledgeable about the coming singular antichrist - BEFORE John wrote his letter, called 1John.

Your misunderstanding is in what is meant by - even now there are many antichrists. John was referring to persons that were foreshadowing the one singular antichrist.

 

[jgr]

Did Ribera or any Jesuit live at the time of John and his fellow Christians? No. So don't go down the war path that covenant theology has against dispensationalism. The concept of the antichrist began in John's day.

Futurism's concept of antichrist began in Ribera's day.

John and his fellow Christians were knowledgeable about the coming singular antichrist - BEFORE John wrote his letter, called 1John.

John corrected their erroneous expectation of a coming singular antichrist in 1 John 2:18.

Your misunderstanding is in what is meant by - even now there are many antichrists. John was referring to persons that were foreshadowing the one singular antichrist.

No foreshadowing involved. Many antichrists were already present. (1 John 2:18)

 

[Douggg]

John corrected their erroneous expectation of a coming singular antichrist in 1 John 2:18.

John never said that they were wrong. John himself held the same concept. One singular antichrist person.

No foreshadowing involved. Many antichrists were already present. (1 John 2:18)

Those persons are foreshadows of the coming singular antichrist person - or else John would have (1) said that them aware that antichrist shall come were wrong, which he didn't (2) John would not have had to say "even now". Indicating that one singular antichrist person had not come. And that when he does come it is in the end times, last days.

 

[jgr]

John never said that they were wrong. John himself held the same concept. One singular antichrist person.

John believed exclusively in plural existing antichrists.

Those persons are foreshadows of the coming singular antichrist person - or else John would have (1) said that them aware that antichrist shall come were wrong, which he didn't (2) John would not have had to say "even now". Indicating that one singular antichrist person had not come. And that when he does come it is in the end times, last days.

They were wrong; John corrected their misexpectation.

 

[Douggg]

John believed exclusively in plural existing antichrists.

They were wrong; John corrected their misexpectation.

John emphasized one coming antichrist person, by saying even now there are many antichrists.

Everyone at that time understood correctly that the function of the Christ is to be the promised great King of Israel. None of those persons prefiguring the coming single antichrist were said to be the King of Israel, nor were insinuated to become the King of Israel.

The ideas of the reformers never considered that the function of the Christ to be the King of Israel descended from David. That's the one most critical place they went astray.

 

[jgr]

John emphasized one coming antichrist person, by saying even now there are many antichrists.

Everyone at that time understood correctly that the function of the Christ is to be the promised great King of Israel. None of those persons prefiguring the coming single antichrist were said to be the King of Israel, nor were insinuated to become the King of Israel.

The ideas of the reformers never considered that the function of the Christ to be the King of Israel descended from David. That's the one most critical place they went astray.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 500: ἀντίχριστος

The name ὁ ἀντίχριστος was formed perhaps by John, the only writer in the N. T. who uses it (five times); he employs it of the corrupt power and influence hostile to Christian interests, especially that which is at work in false teachers who have come from the bosom of the church and are engaged in disseminating error: 1 John 2:18 (where the meaning is, 'what ye have heard concerning Antichrist, as about to make his appearance just before the return of Christ, is now fulfilled in the many false teachers, most worthy to be called antichrists...