When Does the Antichrist Appear?

[time-keeper]

hmmm, i see, very intresting.. i would have though John Calvin would advocate calvanism, not Presbyterian...

Edited June 3, 2010 by time-keeper

[Guest yod]

.

[Shiloh62]

The most glaring inconsistency of the rapture theory, is that the Antichrist will not appear until after the saints are caught away; seven years before the end of the world. Paul settles the entire matter for us in the first few verses of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [of our gathering together unto Him] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin [Antichrist] be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (vs. 1-4).

The words of Paul are so plain that it is difficult to comment on them. How can they be plainer? Christ's coming will not take place "except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed." Show these words to anyone not prejudiced by "private" interpretations, and he will say, "These verses say that the man of sin (Antichrist) is going to be revealed before Jesus comes."

Paul is not referring to some superman suddenly to appear 2,000 years after his epistles. He wrote, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work" (v. 7). While Paul lived, he combated the emerging spirit of the Antichrist. By the sixth century A.D., Antichrist had matured. The crowning act in the great drama of deception, however, occurs just before the return of Christ: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."' Verse 8. This clearly states that Antichrist will be destroyed when Christ comes. He does not arrive after the Second Advent.

And here's the crowning clarification in this whole thing. Revelation 20:4 assures us that some of those who are raised in the first resurrection will be those who refused to worship the beast and receive his mark! How completely this demolishes the futuristic school of prophetic interpretation is evident, for they claim that the emergence of the Antichrist and the imposition of his mark are to be looked for after the first resurrection and what they call the secret rapture.

So he/she has been here since the 6th century AD, but has still not been revealed?

[Bold Believer]

hmmm, i see, very intresting.. i would have though John Calvin would advocate calvanism, not Presbyterian...

Calvinism is pretty much one of the cardinal doctrines of Reformed Presbyterian Churches.

[Bold Believer]

Who among us believe that he is in this world already???

Who believes that they know who he is?? or have an idea perhaps?

Just a question i wanted to put out there...

Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): "Luther ... proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy ... And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated o

[Bold Believer]

And many more.

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Kaiser Wilhelm, every US president since Lincoln, Nero, Domitian, Abilard, George III, yada, yada...

So it looks like many in the history of the church believe the anti-christ to be a literal person, right? Could it be that they are right about that but guessed the wrong person?

That's a lot of theologians who believe The Man of Perdition and the Anti-Christ will be a person. I'm starting to rethink my position. So, you're saying that the man of perdition and the Anti-Christ won't be the same person or that all of these theologians don't know the bible as well as you do?

(I say that all the time, btw)

If you're asking me, Yod, my reasons are based on John's definition of what an antichrist is and the fact that John only uses the term four times. Antichrist is (was?) a spirit which led men to become antichrists; Gnostics/Docetists. Paul on the other hand equates the man of lawlessness (or sin if you prefer) with thinking that he himself is God/a god...in the flesh. If the man of lawlessness were 'the antichrist' or an antichrist at all, he'd be saying that Jesus never came in the flesh and that he was only a spirit (the Christ-spirit, much like the New Agers say; IMO New Age-ism is little more than warmed over Gnosticism).

As for whether or not those theologians know the Bible better than we do...they put their pants on the same way any other man does, and make mistakes. Right on back to the Early Church Fathers. The only theologians I trust completely are the Apostles and Prophets who wrote Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[BlindSeeker]

The idea that the office of the Papacy is 'the antichrist' is utterly ridiculous as well. It springs from hatred of Roman Catholicism's religious tyranny and corruption and not from any Scriptural context and should therefore be relegated to the realm of tradition, like the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who often taught things which don't come from Scripture either. And do remember...the Catholic Church called LUTHER the antichrist in the Counter-Reformation. Like two arguing children, it's been "The Pope is the Antichrist!" "Nuh uh, it's Martin Luther!" "The Pope!" "Luther!" for centuries now.

My, my . . . what historical belief this "utterly ridiculous" concept is . . . .

The Epistle Dedicatory

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE JAMES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.

The Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord.

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty

[Guest yod]

.

[Joshua-777]

If you're asking me, Yod, my reasons are based on John's definition of what an antichrist is and the fact that John only uses the term four times. Antichrist is (was?) a spirit which led men to become antichrists; Gnostics/Docetists. Paul on the other hand equates the man of lawlessness (or sin if you prefer) with thinking that he himself is God/a god...in the flesh.

I think that the term "anti-christ" as a literal person refers to the "Son of Perdition" who sits in the Temple. Are you saying that this is a spirit and not a literal person?

As for whether or not those theologians know the Bible better than we do...they put their pants on the same way any other man does, and make mistakes. Right on back to the Early Church Fathers. The only theologians I trust completely are the Apostles and Prophets who wrote Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I tend to agree with that...just wanted to hear if anyone else would.

Knowledge has increased in these last days, just as Daniel said it would. We, this generation, have access to more information about the Bible and about the history of Israel & the world than the greatest theologians living only 100 years ago.

They didn't see the rebirth of Israel, the recapture of Jerusalem, and the United Nations coming against this tiny place. How could they interpret events spoken of by the Prophets in the dark like?

[EricH]

I side with the with the understanding of the translators of the KJV . . .

That is really not a proof.