Postmillennialism: Christendom's Bright Cheerful View Of The Future Of The Human Race.

[Justin Adams]

1 hour ago, Roar said:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New King James Version (NKJV)

¹⁶ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for ^[a]instruction in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Origen quoted this to support his idea that 1st Enoch should be canon. In actual fact, the books that Yeshua and the apostles read were far more comprehensive than our protestant canon. The LXX was mostly quoted by them and they also quote other 'verboten' books that most modern believers have no clue about. They also had the earlier non-Masoretic Hebrew texts.

The many differences between the later Masoretic and LXX (Septuagint) were markedly obvious. After 'The Way' became known, the rabbis dissed the LXX in favor of the newer edited Masoretic texts. They did not now like their former Binitarian theology and declared it a heresy. Go figure.

The scriptures being beneficial was not talking about our much reduced canon, but anything they thought of benefit including second temple literature that was prolific and taught in the times of the apostles. It did NOT refer to the 5th century and later books of the protestant canon. Plain reading will tell us this, but the church's propensity for overstating things like this is quite nauseating. The 'verboten' books were read by Yeshua and the apostles and disciples of the early church. After all, that was their Bible..

Edited July 7, 2020 by Justin Adams

[JAG**]

Proposition: There Is No Compelling Argument For A Future Antichrist.

For those interested in a personal study of Postmillennialism the following

may be helpful. Dr. Loraine Boettner was a dedicated servant of the Lord and

wrote several books that greatly helped Christendom. He was a good

Bible teacher and a strong Bible believing Christian servant of the Lord Jesus.

 

 

Says Dr. Loraine Boettner

 

". . . not one single reference in Daniel or Ezekiel or Paul or the Book of Revelation . . .

which (some) allege refer to the Antichrist is connected in any way with the verses in

the epistles of John that mention the antichrist. All is based on inference. Let the reader

search for himself and see how far-fetched that (alleged) connection is.

 

We make bold to say that this picture of Antichrist as a (future) world ruler . . . is pure fiction,

without so much as one clear supporting verse in all Scripture."

The Millennium, Dr. Loraine Boettner, page 210

 

The Bible mentions Antichrist in only the following 4 verses:

1 John 2:18

1John 2:22

1 John 4:3

2 John 7

 

There is no compelling argument for a future Antichrist because . . . .

 

There is no compelling argument that connects these 4 verses with

anything said in Daniel or Ezekiel or Paul or the Book of Revelation.

 

For example:

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.

 

Also note the following from John's epistles that mention antichrist:

 

(1) Antichrist is applied to many persons existing in the first century

1 John 2:18 "even now has there arisen many antichrists"

In the next verse, 1 John 2:19, John identifies the antichrists as

first century Christian apostates "They went out from us, but they

did not really belong to us."

 

(2) In 1 John 2:22 the antichrist is identified as those who deny the

Father and the Son. "This is the antichrist, even he that denies the

Father and the Son." The antichrists were first century apostates.

 

(3) In 1 John 4:3 the antichrist is identified as every one who does

not acknowledge Jesus. It is then said that antichrist "even now is

already in the world" (of the first century).

 

(4) 2 John 7 says that the antichrist is many deceivers that have gone

out in the world (of the first century.) Therefore this verse says that

there are many antichrists, not just one antichrist.

 

___________________

 

Christians disagree on the subject of Christian Eschatology, but all Christians love the

Lord Jesus and  want to see His Christian Church successfully carry out the Lord

Jesus' Great Commission to go and make disciples of all the nations. The Lord Jesus'

Great Commission is given at the the end of Matthew's gospel chapter 28. Jesus said

that all power both in Heaven and on Earth had now been given to Him, and then He

said THEREFORE go and make disciples of all the nations. This means that the power to

get this done is His power and also the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit that

blesses our evangelism efforts. 

 

May the Lord continue to bless His Christian Church here in the 21st Century

and for ever and ever. 

 

JAG

 

 

 

``

 

 

[JAG**]

There Are No Compelling Arguments for A Future Antichrist.

Some thoughts on 1 John 2:18-19

 

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist

is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is

the last hour.

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had

belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed

that none of them belonged to us. 1 John 2:18-19

 

Note the particulars in 1 John 2:18-19

(1) "this is the last hour" That compellingly refers to the time of the first century.
It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an absurd interpretation.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.
Just as it could not refer to the year 950 A.D.
Or to the year 1200 A.D.
Or to the year 1880 A.D.
Or to the year 2018 A.D.
It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.


(2) "even NOW many antichrists have come"
The "NOW" refers to the time of the first century.

It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an absurd interpretation.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.

Just as it could not refer to the year 450 A.D.

Or to the year 1100 A.D.

Or to the year 1680 A.D.

Or to the year 1760 A.D.

It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.

(3) "MANY antichrists have come."
"Many is plural. There were many antichrists that had ALREADY come in the
time of the first century.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.

It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an absurd interpretation.

Just as it could not refer to the year 450 A.D.

Or to the year 1000 A.D.

Or to the year 1480 A.D.

Or to the year 1260 A.D.

It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.

(4) "They went out from us. but they did not belong to us"
This compellingly is a reference to the first century, when John wrote 1 John.
It CANNOT refer to any future time.

It CANNOT refer to the year 2020. That would be an absurd interpretation.

Just as it could not refer to the year 450 A.D.

Or to the year 850 A.D.

Or to the year 1380 A.D.

Or to the year 1860 A.D.

It MUST refer ONLY to the time it was written, namely the first century.

 

 

JAG

 

 

[JAG**]

All 4 below are fully orthodox and fully Christian.

(1) Postmillennialism
(2) Premillennialism
(3) Amillennialism
(4) Dispensationalism

There are no  dangerous beliefs in these 4. None whatsoever.

All 4 views of the Christian future are held by Christians who  are orthodox Bible believing born again Christians.

My wife and I attend a Bible believing Baptist-type Christian church
along with our grown children and our 6 grandchildren.

I believe the following with all my mind, heart, and soul:

I believe in the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe in the Deity of the Lord Jesus. That He is fully God. (John 1: 1-5)

I believe in the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus.

I believe in the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and free from all error. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

I believe in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus.

I believe in a coming Judgment.

I believe that salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus' death
on the Cross where He died to pay for our sins. Ephesians 2:8

I believe in all the orthodox doctrinal Protestant Creeds. That is, I am a Bible believing Protestant
in my faith and practice.

I do NOT hold to a single weird or strange or unusual belief. Postmillennialism is a mainstream
orthodox Bible believing view of the future of the human race and of the future of the Christian
Church.

I have posted in this thread a list of the names of dozens of Christian Postmillennial scholars
who believe the Bible is the word of God and 100% true --- but who DISAGREE with
Premillennialists on what the Holy Scriptures teach with regard to the end time passages.

There is nothing DANGEROUS about Postmillennialism or Premillennialism or Amillennialism
or Dispensationalism.

If there is any DANGER in any of this, the DANGER is in making the claim that either of the 4
main Christian Eschatological views are dangerous.

That is a FALSE claim.

And it is DANGEROUS to make a false claim.

There are large segments within Bible Believing Christendom that holds different views of the
future of the human race and the future of the Christian Church.

There are 4 of them.

All 4 are fully orthodox and fully Christian.

(1) Postmillennialism
(2) Premillennialism
(3) Amillennialism
(4) Dispensationalism

_____________________


May the Lord bless and keep us.
May the Lord make His face to shine upon us.
May the Lord be gracious unto us.
May the Lord turn His face toward us.
May the Lord give us His protection and His peace.
(Based upon Numbers 6:24-27)
 

JAG

Edited July 7, 2020 by JAG**

[JAG**]

Some additional thoughts on There Are No Compelling Arguments For a Future Antichrist.

The antichrist is NOT  mentioned anywhere in Daniel, Ezekiel, Paul's epistles, the book of Revelation, or anywhere else in the Bible
except here in John's epistles:
1 John 2:18
1 John 2:22
1 John 4:3
2 John 7

Daniel chapter 7 is a highly controversial chapter in God's word and Christian scholars disagree on how to interpret that chapter.

And there is no clear and certain connection between Daniel 7 and  John's mention of antichrist.

All one has to do is merely read 1 John 2:18 and 1 John 2:22 and 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7 . . . and they will find NOT a single
mention or reference to any "Little Horn" or to Daniel 7 or to 2 Thess, 2 or to Rev. 13 or to any other passage in God's word.

The connection is made on pure interpretative speculation and nothing more than pure interpretative speculation.

John NEVER mentions the "Little Horn" NEVER . 

There is no  clear and certain proof that John had a "Little Horn" in mind when he wrote his epistles and mentioned
antichrist. Its all based on pure speculation. 

 

JAG

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by JAG**

[JAG**]

Some more thoughts on There Are No Compelling Arguments For A Future Antichrist.

The antichrists were in John NEAR FUTURE and NOT in John's FAR OFF FUTURE.

 

Pure  speculation about John's "future" yet to come antichrist is NOT a COMPELLING

argument because the Biblical text nowhere in John's epistles gives any indication that

John was saying that the antichrist was in the FAR OFF FUTURE.

That means that John's antichrist could have appeared in John's NEAR FUTURE

In fact John's epistles clearly support the NEAR FUTURE position.

Evidence to support the NEAR FUTURE position is the clear statements in John's epistles

that certainly and COMPELLINGLY identify John's antichrists as JOHN'S PRESENT DAY

Christian apostates. John clearly said the following about them, and about his present

time of the first century:

 

(1) "this is the last hour" (written over 2000 years ago and clearly not a reference to the year 2020)

 

"this is the last hour" is a clear reference to the time when John wrote that, namely the first century.

 

(2) "even NOW many antichrists have come." (John's antichrist were there in the first century)

 

(3) "they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, For if they had belonged to us,

they would have remained with us, but their going showed that none of them belonged to us"

 

In (3) up there John is clearly speaking about his time of the first century and clearly does NOT

have reference to some future time period.

 

So?

So the Bible is CLEAR that John's antichrists were first century Christian apostates.

 

 

JAG

 

 

 

[Justin Adams]

13 minutes ago, Josheb said:

First, at no point anywhere in any post did I state or otherwise imply satan was not real

The Nacash as seen in the garden is quite real, though his various forms, deceiver, shining one, serpent may allude to him being of the Throne Guardian type. Later, haSatan or Satan (proper noun) was used as a reference though hasatan can also be used of an opposing messenger and not necessarily evil.

Satan, as depicted in the epistles, is mentioned along with the other principalities and powers as a fallen holy one.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Justin Adams

[JAG**]

Some Thoughts On "The Man Of Sin" In 2 Thess. 2

Many orthodox Bible believing Christian scholars disagree that there is
to be a future "man of sin."

Many reputable orthodox Bible believing born again Christian scholars
identify the "man of sin" mentioned in 2 Thess. 2 as Paul referring to
Nero Caesar who lived in the first century.

Christendom has not settled on who the "man of sin" was.

There is NOT a Christian consensus that the "man of sin" refers to
a future individual who will appear in the end times.

Regarding Paul's mention of the "man of sin":
 

I am sitting here at my computer and I am going to take the time to type into this posting

block a passage from Dr. Kenneth Gentry's work titled He Shall Have Dominion.

 

What follows is not a Copy & Paste job, but will be a small drop of my blood, sweat, and tears

to get all this typed up just for you.

 

I hope all will  find it helpful.

Please give this a slow and careful read.

 

Start quote.

We come now to another difficult eschatological passage, one rivaling Daniel 9 in the intensity

of its interpretative controversy: 2 Thessalonians 2. This famous passage contains Paul's

reference to the "man of lawlessness" (Nestle's text) or "man of sin" (Majority text.)

 

Scholars note this passage's exceptional difficulty. Augustine writes regarding a certain portion

of the passage: "I confess that I am entirely ignorant of what he means to say."

 

New Testament Greek scholar Vincent omits interpreting the passage in his four volume lexical

commentary: "I attempt no interpretation of this passage as a whole, which I do not understand."

 

Renowned Greek linguist A. T. Robertson despairs of the task of interpreting this passage because

it is "in such vague form that we can hardly clear it up."

 

Leon Morris urges "care" in handling this "notoriously difficult passage."

 

F.F. Bruce notes that "there are few New Testament passages that can boast such a variety of

interpretations as this."

 

Even some Dispensationalists admit that it is "an extremely puzzling passage of Scripture that has

been a thorn in the flesh of many an expositor."

End quote.

 

Source:

He Shall Have Dominion

by Dr. Kenneth Gentry,

page386

 

_________________

 

So?

 

So one might "go slow" in claiming certainty with regard to interpreting 2 Thessalonians chapter 2

 

Gentry concludes "that the "man of lawlessness" was Nero Caesar, who was also the "beast" of

Revelation." --- and he presents his arguments to support his conclusion.

 

I personally do NOT take a position on who the "man of lawlessness" was { aka the "man of sin"}

 

I don't KNOW that we CAN ever KNOW for certain.

 

Dr. Kenneth Gentry makes a very convincing argument that the "man of sin" was Nero Caesar
who persecuted the Christians of the first century.

 

 

JAG

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by JAG**

[ENOCH2010]

If we are living in the 1000 year reign today, why is Christ not ruling with a rod of iron? If I understand the scriptures concerning the 1000 year reign, it sounds like the ruling government will be a theocracy, today the world is a far cry from a theocracy with a king ruling with a rod of iron.

[JAG**]

15 minutes ago, Josheb said:

What [ . . . ]

 

 

Josheb,

I made about 4 or 5 posts beginning  on page 8.

The first post was Proposition: There Is No Compelling Argument For A Future Antichrist.

I also posted  on "the man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2 being a first century character.  Dr. Gentry 

believes the "man of sin" was Nero Caesar. 

If you have a minute or two, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have pro or con

on those 4 or 5 posts.

JAG

 

 

``

Edited July 7, 2020 by JAG**