I don't feel the need to comment any more about my relationship with Christianity and Christian culture, since I already posted enough about that publicly. If asked directly about anything in future, however, I'd be happy to answer.

I do want to agree that indeed the <playground player> forum cannot be predicted! Who knows what will come next. It's certainly a stimulating environment, lots of civility and food for thought here.

<achieve> Come back soon!

<You Rang> You say the Antichrist will be a specific person: certainly there is Biblical support for this. <Ohio Chess Fan> says it's more likely to be a "spirit of antichrist" as discussed by St. John, maybe a certain movement or worldview.

How about a movement led by a specific person?

The problem with the Postmillenial position, which I occupy, is that the Church has had 2,000 years to advance the Kingdom of Christ and has not done much of a job of it. Europe, which used to be "Christendom," has become anything but.

Well, let's look at Johns references to "antichrist" in the order given:

1Jn 2 <18 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. 19 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. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[e] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.>

Observations:

- v18 He opened saying "you have heard that the antichrist was coming". He is clearly referring to some previously understood doctrine about a coming antichrist. It looks to me like this doctrine was a prophecy about a specific individual who was to come.

- v18 goes on to mention "many antichrists" who have already come. These must be different from the foretold individual mentioned earlier.

- In v 19 He defines what he means by "antichist": they are ones who "went out from us, but they did not really belong to us". IMO, this means they are people who claim to be represntatives of God, but are in fact false prophets.

- In v21, he makes it clear that an antichrist is a person, whose main distictive is that they deny Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah.

Next reference:

1Jn 4: <1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. >

Observations:

- v1 John says don't believe every spirit because some are true and some are false. John associates the false spirits with the "many false prophets have gone out into the world". I believe these are synonymous with the "many antichrists who have come" mentioned in 2:18 above. The implication here is that each person is influenced either by a true or false spirit.

- v2 He gives a test by which believers can distinguish between true and false spirits: The true ones identify Jesus as the Messiah from God (basically the same test mentioned earlier in 2:22)

- v3 <Finally coming to the "spirit of antichrist" reference!> He identifies the false spirit as the "spirit of antichrist". Here again, I think he is referring to the individual antichrist who was foretold would come.

Considering the context, it's clear (to me anyway) that this is NOT saying that the antichrist IS a spirit -- it's saying that the same false spirit that influences all false prophets (or plural antichrists) is the spirit that will influence the foretold individual antichrist.

Well, I think there are too many references to a specific antichrist who comes at the end of the age to think that the antichrist is a "movement".

We see an individual referenced in Daniel. We see an individual in Revelation. We see Paul refer to an individual in his letter to the Thessalonians:

2 Thes 2 <1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the <man of lawlessness> is revealed, the <man> doomed to destruction. 4 <He> will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding <him> back, so that <he> may be revealed at the proper time.

7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the <lawless one> will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the <lawless one> will be in accordance with how Satan works. <He> will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,

10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. >

Frankly, I don't see how one can miss the idea that we should expecting an individual man to fulfill this prophecy. I think the individual mentioned here is the specific antichrist who was foretold would come. He and his actions are consistent with Daniel's prophecy, Jesus' Olivet discourse, and what is said about him in Revelation.

<You Rang> Thank you for a cogent and edifying presentation.

R.J. Rushdoony pointed out that a Christian's eschatology, no matter how obscure it may seem to others, affects him in subtle but important ways. Naturally. If you're sure the world is going to end on Tuesday, you probably won't bother to remodel your kitchen.

"You have heard" doesn't mean what they heard was correct.

<v18 goes on to mention "many antichrists" who have already come. These must be different from the foretold individual mentioned earlier.>

That doesn't follow if the first presumption is incorrect.

<In v 19 He defines what he means by "antichist": they are ones who "went out from us, but they did not really belong to us". IMO, this means they are people who claim to be represntatives of God, but are in fact false prophets.>

So far, you are presenting a consistent case. I just think the original premise is faulty. IMO he is describing some of the antichrists who went out from them.

<In v21, he makes it clear that an antichrist is a person, whose main distictive is that they deny Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah.>

We agree. I presume you meant v. 22 there. However, v. 23 provides some clarification. Here's v. 22 and 23 together.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

We have been given a way:

Jesus (Mt 24) < 15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’spoken of through the prophet Daniel — let the reader understand — 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. >

Paul (in the 2 Thes 2 passage I quoted earlier): <3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. >

I think both Jesus and Paul (and Daniel) are referring to the same event: An "abomination of desolation" in the temple (i.e. holy place). This event, IMO, is where the antichrist is positively identified.

However, I think there are also signs that preceed this. The abomination will happen (according to my understanding) at the mid-point of a future 7-year period. The "great distress" mentioned by Jesus is what follows in the 3 1/2 years after the abomination. Revelation tells us what to expect in the first 3 1/2 years.

BTW, I believe Jesus was adamant that we know what the signs are and watch for them:

Mark 13: 32 <28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.

30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.

35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” >

OCF: "You have heard" doesn't mean what they heard was correct.>

The idea that what they heard was untrue seems to be your main objection to my view here, and technically, your statement is true.

But it would seem strange then for John to reference an untrue statement without stating that it is false. On the contrary, he seems to build upon it.

Also, notice that this verse is surrounded by other instances where John uses the expression "you have heard", where he is clearly referring to previous Biblical teachings:

Just a few verses earlier in the same chapter: 1 Jn 2:7 -- <7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message <you have heard>.>

Just a few verses later in the same chapter: 1 Jn 2:24 -- <24 As for you, see that what <you have heard> from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.>

It seems odd for John to use this "you have heard" expression three times in short succession, but on the middle instance he is referring to something false while the other times he is referring to previously accepted teaching.

Yes, thank you.

<OCF: However, v. 23 provides some clarification. Here's v. 22 and 23 together.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

I think it would a real distortion of the paralellism of the verse to suggest that the reference to "he that denieth" means only one person, whereas "he that acknowledgeth" means many people. And if "he that denieth" = the antichrist, is it really necessary to point out that person doesn't have the Father?>

What would be more natural than for Jesus' disciple to use this formula in his teaching? Based on this, I would lean to <Ohio Chess Fan> being right: to introduce the lesson with "Ye have heard" usually leads to the teaching that you haven't heard the whole truth.

We don't want to go round and round like scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, eschatology is important. But how do you convince anybody that your particular school of eschatology is right?

And back we go to "the abomination that maketh desolate," first spoken of by Daniel and apparently fulfilled in the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes. To me it is confusing that Jesus should bring it up again.

How are we to apply that prophecy to our own time, or to the future? What is the nature of the abomination? And where is "the holy place"? Would that prophecy describe, say, a notorious atheist or heretic becoming pope? Or the defection of a whole Protestant denomination into out-and-out goddess worship? Does the Temple in Jerusalem have to be rebuilt before there can be a holy place? To me it seems you could make an argument for any of the above, as various people have from time to time.

Yes, we should be able to read "the signs of the times," by God's grace. But even so we are talking about matters which God has purposely concealed...

What would be more natural than for Jesus' disciple to use this formula in his teaching? Based on this, I would lean to <Ohio Chess Fan> being right: to introduce the lesson with "Ye have heard" usually leads to the teaching that you haven't heard the whole truth.>

Interesting. Obviously one can nit pick over words until the cows come home, but here is my take on your comment:

In the Sermon on the Mount (in Mt 5), I would agree that Jesus is correcting the understanding his audience has about things they have heard. But let's look at it more closely:

- Note that he uses the phrase <You have heard> to refer to previously established teachings (which happen to be actual OT teachings). He is not refuting that teaching itself! This *agrees* with the my understanding of the way John used that phrase.

- The idea that Jesus was correcting their understanding of those teachings is *not* implied by the phrase <you have heard> . Rather, it's implied by a phrase that Jesus added: <But I tell you ...>.

- Finally, note also that in John's epistle, John used <You have heard>, but did *not* say <But I tell you>, or anything like it. In other words, he was referencing previously established teaching, but (unlike Jesus) was not correcting their understanding of it. Again, I think this agrees with my view.

<We don't want to go round and round like scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, eschatology is important. But how do you convince anybody that your particular school of eschatology is right?>

I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone I'm right. I myself have, for some time, been seeking an understanding of it that makes sense based on traditional well-established methods of interpretation, and is consistent with the entire Bible. I have changed my mind about things several times over this time. At this point I feel that my current view (for the most part) makes sense to me, and is the only view I know that does.

I'm willing to discuss it with anyone interesting in discussing it, but I'm not going to fight over it, and I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong if someone finds fault with my view or proposes a better view.

<And back we go to "the abomination that maketh desolate," first spoken of by Daniel and apparently fulfilled in the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes. To me it is confusing that Jesus should bring it up again.>

Which, to me, simply clarifies that Antichus wasn't the fulfillment that Jesus was speaking about.

<How are we to apply that prophecy to our own time, or to the future?>

IMO, considering the the whole body of prophecy, it only makes sense as future events. One can only think otherwise if one is willing to accept the prophecy is either (1) exaggerated or (2) has only an allegorical fulfillment. In either case, it would be inconsistent with the nature of prophecy that has already been fulfilled -- not exaggerated and fulfilled in actual, tangible ways.

<What is the nature of the abomination? And where is "the holy place"?>

I presume the abomination is as Paul described in 2 Thes 2. I think the holy place can only be the temple.

<Would that prophecy describe, say, a notorious atheist or heretic becoming pope? Or the defection of a whole Protestant denomination into out-and-out goddess worship?>

You mean regarding the Antichrist? I think he will be an actual person. My own suspicion is that he will claim to be a Christian, although welcoming and accepting of all religions. I think he will be a popular figure with many professing Christians, which makes me think he will be politically conservative. Initially, I think he will appear to be a friend to Israel. His main strength is deception. BTW, reading about Antiochus IV may be illuminating.

<Does the Temple in Jerusalem have to be rebuilt before there can be a holy place? To me it seems you could make an argument for any of the above, as various people have from time to time.>

heh

The whole world heard of Jesus in some fashion in the first century.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

<Is it their fault that they had no opportunity to know what you know?>

No.

<And didn't the result of the tower of Babel create this problem in the first place?>

For some unknown reason, God kept the early missionaries from heading in that direction. I am not sure how to reconcile that with the fact the Bible to some degree was made known to all nations, but apparently it wasn't the primary target for the early evangelistic efforts.

Acts 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

In other words, it seems unlikely now that there are many people in China who have not heard of Jesus or the Gospel.

When Christ ascended, He commissioned the apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations. Has this, in fact, been done?