The Coming Great Apostasy?

[JoeMo]

" 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."               (2 Thes. 2:3 -NIV)  Other translations use the term "falling away" and "apostasy" rather than rebellion.  The sentiment expressed is the same.

What is "apostasy"?  For purposes of this thread, I will define "apostasy" as "turning away" or "changing your mind" about something a person or organization once held as truth.  For example - a Catholic apostatizes from the Catholic Church when they convert to Adventism.  A Muslim apostatizes from Islam when they convert to Christianity.  The church (no denomination implied) apostatizes when they turn away from principles they once held as absolute truth.

2 Thessalonians and other scripture (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:1-9)seem to tell us that there will be a great Apostasy in the end times.  People professing to be Christians will abandon biblical truth and principles.  This has been going on since apostolic times as "little a" apostasy.  The past few years, however, have made me wonder of we are slipping into "Capitial A" Apostasy. For example:

1. 30 years ago, movies with cuss-words or any nudity whatsoever were considered "B" movies.  Now anything without full frontal nudity and frequent use of the f-bomb will usually get away with a PG or PG-13 rating.

2. 30 years ago, TV couples slept in twin beds.  Now unmarried TV couples are shown "sleeping" - well - "coupled".

3. 20 years ago, homosexuality was considered totally taboo in most Christian circles.  Now, churches openly welcome gay people; and even appoint them to leadership positions as high as "bishop" (no denomination implied). 

4. 20 years ago, salvation was achieved through trust and obedience to God's Law.  Now, all we have to do is love Jesus and we will be saved because He has already forgiven everyone's sins.

5. 20 years ago, sound doctrine was clearly defined; and Christian truth was more or less absolute.  Now truth seems to be relative in most churches (no denomination implied).

6. 20 years ago, it was more or less a widespread belief that Christians did not smoke, drink, or smoke pot. Now (at least in Colorado), there are professed Christians running marijuana dispensaries and taking cannabis  products for "medical" reasons.

7. 20 years ago, Christianity we composed of people who believed that Jesus was Lord AND Savior; and you weren't a Christian unless you believed this.  Now we have amalgamated religions like "Crislam" and the Christian Church of AI (artificial intelligence).

8. 20 years ago, most Christians were dead set against abortion.  Now, more than half of Christians are okay with it.

If these were just isolated  examples here and there, it would be one thing.  Now, just about all of these examples are universal throughout the church (no denomination implied).

Are these changes all bad?  Hard to say.  Recognition that gays can also be believers IMHO may be a good thing.  Promoting gays to church leadership and/or sponsoring support groups that celebrate the gay lifestyle - not so much.  Recognition that alcoholics, smokers, and druggies can be Christian is a good thing.  Sponsoring a dispensary or having a pot or tequila party after church - not so much.  Is the church progressing because we are meeting people where they are; or is the church regressing because we look more and more like the world?

Looking at the recent news, I can't help but think we could be entering the time of Apostasy spoken of in 2 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy.  Many in our churches (no denomination implied) are "lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive,disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,  treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—  having a form of godliness but denying its power."  Are we entering a time where we are being set up for the great deception, to accept globalization, a one-world government,  and a universal religion?  Will political correctness and hyper-tolerance dumb us all down to the point where we all think the same?  Will people who oppose this movement be marginalized, then persecuted, then executed or put in institutions for being crazy?

I have no answer.  I feel strongly both ways.  I'd be interested what others think about this situation.

[TrevorL]

Greetings JoeMo,

On ‎16‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:42 AM, JoeMo said:

" 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."               (2 Thes. 2:3 -NIV)  Other translations use the term "falling away" and "apostasy" rather than rebellion.  The sentiment expressed is the same.

What is "apostasy"?  For purposes of this thread, I will define "apostasy" as "turning away" or "changing your mind" about something a person or organization once held as truth.  For example - a Catholic apostatizes from the Catholic Church when they convert to Adventism.  A Muslim apostatizes from Islam when they convert to Christianity.  The church (no denomination implied) apostatizes when they turn away from principles they once held as absolute truth.

2 Thessalonians and other scripture (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:1-9)seem to tell us that there will be a great Apostasy in the end times.  People professing to be Christians will abandon biblical truth and principles.  This has been going on since apostolic times as "little a" apostasy.  The past few years, however, have made me wonder of we are slipping into "Capitial A" Apostasy.

I suggest that 2 Thessalonians 2 is speaking of the development of the Roman Catholic Church, especially after the removal of the Pagan Roman Empire. But I agree that the world seems to be declining very rapidly, ready for Christ’s judgements when he returns.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, TrevorL said:

I suggest that 2 Thessalonians 2 is speaking of the development of the Roman Catholic Church,

Greetings Trevor,

I know you are promoting the traditional Adventist view as stated by EGW; but the signs of the times don't point to the RCC as the beast/antichrist.  IMHO the signs point towards Islam.  I'm not saying the RCC is completely irrelevant in the end of the age, they will probably be a "player"; but (again IMHO), world events currently point towards radical Islam as being the antichrist.

In all likelihood, we all have it wrong.  Biblical history has shown that we really don't know how prophecy will unfold until it unfolds.  I offer the following verse as an indication of that:

" No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."  (1 Cor. 2:7)

The "rulers of this age" referenced in the verse are the same rulers described in Ephesians 6:12"

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Satan and his ilk didn't even understand the consequences of killing Jesus until after the resurrection.  Based on precedent, I propose that we have only vague clues of how the end will come about; and all we can do is watch and be ready - including resisting the pressure to conform to world government, world moral decay, one world religion, and the mark of the beast.

Blessings,

JoeMo

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JoeMo,

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I know you are promoting the traditional Adventist view as stated by EGW; but the signs of the times don't point to the RCC as the beast/antichrist.  IMHO the signs point towards Islam.  I'm not saying the RCC is completely irrelevant in the end of the age, they will probably be a "player"; but (again IMHO), world events currently point towards radical Islam as being the antichrist.

I disagree with your assessment. Firstly I do not support EGW, but yes I endorse the traditional interpretation that has been presented by Protestants, that Daniel 7 is speaking about the 4th Roman Beast, and that the little horn is the Papacy. This concept is also considered to be further developed and applied in 2 Thessalonians. Radical Islam is a factor in today’s world, but my understanding is firstly based on Ezekiel 38 where I believe that Rosh is speaking about Russia, being the head of the latter day confederacy that invades the Holy Land. Next on the list is Persia, and if you want to consider the present situation, it was Russia and Iran that were greatly influential in suppressing the extremely radical Islam group ISIS, as well as holding at bay the American backed rebels. How quickly the wrong prognosis emanating from some Evangelical sources is undone concerning ISIS being the real anti-Christ or whatever they claimed. Some suggested ISIS was like the ancient Assyria.

 

My understanding is that Russia will assume the role of the military wing of the Roman Empire, will take Istanbul Daniel 11:40-45, then with the backing of Iran and Europe invade the Holy Land, there to be defeated by Christ Ezekiel 38. I also believe that after this many nations will submit to Christ’s rule in Jerusalem, but the Papacy will not submit and will at that time fulfill the prophecies concerning the anti-Christ.

 

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In all likelihood, we all have it wrong.  Biblical history has shown that we really don't know how prophecy will unfold until it unfolds.

58 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

This verse cannot be used to "prove" what you are saying at all. There are many instances where the Bible clearly dilineates Bible prophecy with stunning accuracy.

I agree with The Wanderer that we can to some extent understand prophecy before it is fulfilled. Even if we consider fulfilled prophecy, often the brief detail given, such as the humble birth of Jesus in Micah 5, is fulfilled in such a remarkable way. I do not read the following to say “after the event”, but rather that the true servants of Jesus will be warned before the event and will be encouraged, even despite sometimes the difficult circumstances, that Jesus is in control, and will eventually raise them from the dead, and give them the Kingdom.

Revelation 1:1-3 (KJV): 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

This also indicates that the Prophecy contained in the Book of Revelation has moral implications, and the end result of this is a balanced servant of God, looking for the return of his Master.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This verse cannot be used to "prove" what you are saying at all.

 

1 hour ago, TrevorL said:

I endorse the traditional interpretation that has been presented by Protestants, that Daniel 7 is speaking about the 4th Roman Beast, and that the little horn is the Papacy.

I won't argue these points with you; they have been argued multiple times in other  threads on this forum.  I am a futurist rather than a preterist or an historisist.  I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; I'm just saying that I believe differently than you guys. See 1John 2:18, 2:22, and 4:3.  Does that sound like the RCC to you?

Rev 17: 9 -11 says, " “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction."

All of these kings ruled Israel in succession.  Rome never ruled Israel after 70AD. In fact, the Temple had likely already been destroyed when John wrote Revelation.  The 5 who have fallen were Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece.  The one that "is" (at least from John's perspective was Rome; so the end-time kingdom cannot be Rome.  The 7th King is the Ottoman Empire, and the 8th is a resurgence of the Islamic Caliphate.  That's my OPINION - not a doctrine carved in granite.  What nations are gathering to make war against Israel - Arab/Muslim countries!  How many Catholic mobs are running around beheading people?  People used to believe the earth was flat.  Just cuz that was the prevailing view 600 years ago doesn't mean it's sacred or right.  Just cuz Protestants believed the Pope was the antichrist 400 years ago doesn't mean their opinions were sacred or right.  The whole world has never been in a global state of crisis like we face now.  Never before (at least since the flood) has humanity had the power to destroy the earth (several times over, if necessary).  The church (no denomination implied) has never been in a state of pending apostasy such as it is now.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JoeMo and Greetings The Wanderer,

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I won't argue these points with you; they have been argued multiple times in other  threads on this forum.  I am a futurist rather than a preterist or an historisist.

That’s fine, but I do not know if you have a solid foundation, by understanding Daniel 2 – the four metals, Daniel 7 – the four beasts, and the 4th representing the Roman Empire. As a futurist, do you have a different view of these basic prophecies? My understanding sees an expansion of these, in that while the Roman aspect of Daniel 7 could be considered to be the Western Roman Empire and an emphasis on the little horn, a religious power, Daniel 8 speaks more of the Eastern Roman Empire with an emphasis on the military aspect.  

 

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; I'm just saying that I believe differently than you guys. See 1John 2:18, 2:22, and 4:3.  Does that sound like the RCC to you?

I consider that this was the beginnings of the RCC, based on Greek philosophy and corrupt Judaism. There was a separation in John’s time. Part of the difference was whether Jesus came in the flesh, and this opened the gate for other wrong ideas, such as the Trinity rather than One God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God; immortal souls, going to heaven at death, rather than looking for Christ to return and resurrect the dead.

 

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Very true, excellent point. All prophecy has a moral purpose, and involves God's people leading a holy Life, and being called to God's great moral compass, His Law.

I do not accept the SDA emphasis that this is concerning keeping the 10 Commandments, with an emphasis on the Sabbath. Part of the moral requirements are stated in conjunction with the 7 letters to the 7 Ekklesias.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There are quite a few problems with this statement. First, it intimates that I am somehow promoting "SDA beliefs" which is definitely not the case, I have not set foot in any church for close to 6 years now.

My impression from our interaction in the “ashes” thread was that you were defending the SDA position. My apologies. In that thread you seemed to object to my assessment of the SDA position on Ezekiel 38 and hence I assumed that you were more thoroughly aware of SDA theology and supported the SDA beliefs on that matter at least.

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Two, all I said was that part of the moral purpose of Bible prophecy was centered around the "moral compass" of God's law. Thats a lot different than what you are trying to say. I dont care who'e beliefs you accept, or do not accept. It doesnt concern me in the slightest.

I was speaking from my knowledge of SDA literature concerning keeping the commandments mentioned in the Book of Revelation. For example the Prophetic Code correspondence course article on The Mark of the Beast, the Sabbath is put forward as the Seal of God in contrast to the Mark of the Beast. To quote: “An experience of loving God and keeping His Commandments is the greatest sign of worship and allegiance. An integral aspect of true worship is to keep the Sabbath in honour of God’s creative power” Page 05.

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Third, can you explain why Christians, (never mind the denomination") should NOT have a strong focus on God's Law? Thinking otherwise makes no sense from a Biblical standpoint. Denominations should have nothing to do with what I said

The principal emphasis should be on faith, not Law. True faith brings forth the fruits of faith, the fruits of the Spirit. Attempts at Law Keeping fail Romans 7.

Kind regards
Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer and JoeMo,

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

And while we are on the subject, faith is not ever our savior, Jesus is. Se John 1:29 and hundreds of other verses in the Bible.

I take on board most of what you have said in your response. Jesus is definitely our Saviour, but we are justified by faith when we believe the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name Acts 8:5,12, Romans 1:16-17 and “hundreds of other verses in the Bible”.

 

Concerning prophecy, Jesus predicted the overthrow of Jerusalem, and warned his disciples that they would need to flee at the appropriate time. This is definitely one prophecy that was necessary to understand before it occurred.

Luke 21:20-24 (KJV): 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[pierrepaul]

I disagree with the premise. Twenty years ago (December 1997), things were not that much different than they are today. Plenty of television shows and movies in the 1990s showed or implied pre-marital and extra-marital sex.

Non-smoking and non-drinking has never been a majority view among Christians. Fewer Christians smoke today than in 1997, but that is part of the downward trend in cigarette smoking in Christian countries over the last 20 years. Most Christians drink alcohol and this has been the majority position for just about all of the last 2000 years. Most Christians use fermented wine in the last supper ceremony.

20 years ago, Christians were as divided over doctrine as they are today.

There has been no material shift in soteriology in the last 20 years. The tension between salvation by commandment keeping and salvation by grace alone has existed since Augustine (Luther more or less simply resurrected Augustine's arguments). I haven't seen any shift since 1997 in the Christian church as a whole.

In 1997, Christianity was as diverse as today. While the majority believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour, the rationalist movement from the 18th and 19th centuries in mainline Protestantism never disappeared. As for new "merged" religions, syncretism has been as old as civilisation itself. However, I haven't seen any evidence of development of "Chrislam".

The only real difference I have seen over the last 20 years has been the legal recognition of same-sex adult unions in most countries of the developed Western world.

 

[JoeMo]

18 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

JoMo, what is the ONLY city on this earth, that is also called a COUNTRY? (there is only one.

Obviously, you are referring to the Vatican.  However, I can't find a verse in the Bible that refers to Babylon as a country.  Also Babylon is described as a city is the desert near to the sea - a major port for imports and exports. (See Rev. 17:18, 18:10-21).  The Vatican is not near the sea nor in a desert.  Babylon also appears to import virtually all of its consumables (Rev. 18:11-13). The Vatican has all the gold and silver it needs.

Mecca and Medina are cities in the desert near the sea; and Mecca is the center of the Islamic world.  The holiest shrine in Islam is there.  It is the most visited place on earth.  Non-Muslims are not even allowed into the city.  It is the "center" of Islam every bit as much as the Vatican is the center of Catholicism (but not all Christendom).

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, TrevorL said:

but I do not know if you have a solid foundation, by understanding Daniel 2 – the four metals, Daniel 7 – the four beasts, and the 4th representing the Roman Empire. As a futurist, do you have a different view of these basic prophecies?

First of all, I feel like I have a pretty solid foundation - not infallible; but solid - as I have been a student of prophecy for over 30 years.

Second of all, I agree with the prophecies of Daniel, but they only provide a partial view of the future; and that has to do specifically with the immediate future of Israel and the neighboring countries in the physical realm during  and after the Babylonian captivity.  Plus, I don't know if we even see Daniel in the same way.  To get the entire story, one must go to Revelation, which has to do mostly with the spiritual realm and the future of all of planet earth.  Daniel never mentions Christ (unless you believe that Michael is the pre-incarnate Christ).  Revelation has everything to do with Christ.  IMHO, Daniel was a "closed book" until the Spirit opened it up to us through a better understanding of the book of Revelation.  Daniel never gets as specific as Revelation; and revelation explicitly eliminates the RCC and Rome as candidates for the beast or the antichrist.

Thirdly, Daniel 8 repeats 3 times that Daniels vision concerns the time of the end.  The very last verse of the Book of Daniel reiterates this point.  I would hardly call events culminating in 70 AD (or even 1844 AD) as "the time of the end".  However, I might call the present time the time of the end.

Lastly, preterist and historicist views pander to supercessionism or replacement theology, which states that Christianity has replaced Israel as God's chosen people.  This is a lie.  Israel has been, is now, and ever shall be God's chosen people.  Us Gentiles who have been grafted into Israel (see Romans 11) will be included as God's chosen people; but there will also be 144,000 Israelites - 12,000 from each tribe - who will be leaders in the Kingdom.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, pierrepaul said:

I haven't seen any evidence of development of "Chrislam".

See http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/chrislam-starts-to-spread-in-america/,  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9716/christian-clergy-islam, and http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=8235 for starters.

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

The only real difference I have seen over the last 20 years has been the legal recognition of same-sex adult unions in most countries of the developed Western world.

... and many mainstream Christian denominations.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JoeMo,

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Second of all, I agree with the prophecies of Daniel, but they only provide a partial view of the future; and that has to do specifically with the immediate future of Israel and the neighboring countries in the physical realm during  and after the Babylonian captivity.  Plus, I don't know if we even see Daniel in the same way.  To get the entire story, one must go to Revelation, which has to do mostly with the spiritual realm and the future of all of planet earth.  Daniel never mentions Christ (unless you believe that Michael is the pre-incarnate Christ).  Revelation has everything to do with Christ.  IMHO, Daniel was a "closed book"

Although there is local application, Daniel 2 gives on overall sequence of four empires, and then the subdivision of the fourth. After this it speaks of the stone striking the image on the feet and then consuming the image. This is stated to represent the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth. The NT identifies Christ as the Stone that strikes the image. Daniel 2 is the basis of the historist view, and the rest of Daniel expands on this framework, and the Book of Revelation is also an expansion, mainly dealing with the various aspects of the 4th Beast of Daniel 7, equivalent to the 4th metal of Daniel 2.

 

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Lastly, preterist and historicist views pander to supercessionism or replacement theology, which states that Christianity has replaced Israel as God's chosen people.

Yes, I agree with you. I do not endorse replacement theology.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[JoeMo]

4 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

and yes, do look up that word "Doctrinaire." 

doc·tri·naire

ˌdäktrəˈner/

adjective

adjective: doctrinaire

1. 1.

   seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations.

   "a doctrinaire conservative"

   synonyms:

   dogmatic, rigid, inflexible, uncompromising; More authoritarian, intolerant, fanatical, zealous, extreme "she is by no means a doctrinaire conservative"

noun

noun: doctrinaire; plural noun: doctrinaires

1. 1.

   a person who seeks to impose a doctrine without regard to practical considerations.

    

   Dude!  I thought we were buds!  I am NOT trying to impose my "doctrine" on anyone; nor am I dogmatic and inflexible.  I am simply stating my opinion (as stated earlier in this thread); and giving some kind of basis for it.  Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong - it simply means that we don't believe the same.  Time will tell which one of us is right or wrong; or if we're both wrong. IMHO, identifying the papacy as the antichrist fits the definition of doctrinaire given the signs of the (present) times.

   Also, I do not consider it "doctrinaire" to be of the opinion that the world and the church (no denomination implied) are falling deeper and deeper into apostasy (which was the original proposition in this thread).

   If our discussion is going to devolve into name calling, I can (and will) simply abandon this thread.

[8thdaypriest]

On 12/20/2017 at 9:54 AM, JoeMo said:

IMHO the signs point towards Islam.  I'm not saying the RCC is completely irrelevant in the end of the age, they will probably be a "player"; but (again IMHO), world events currently point towards radical Islam as being the antichrist.

Wow!  So many topics here on this thread.  Let me address just one - THE Antichrist.  

Is the AntiChrist an individual?  It would seem so, because he "will sit in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God". 

This individual may be the head of a movement, which is against Jesus Christ.  Many groups would fit that description: 

Ancient Jews (who persecuted Christians),  Roman emperors and forces under their control,   Muslims (who say that Allah never beget a son),  Catholics (who introduced many heresies, and persecuted those who taught truths).

Today there are atheist groups trying to remove any reference to "God" from governmental, educational and public forums (they do persecute - in different ways).  Radical Muslims  have sworn to convert all Christians or kill them.  Traditional Judaism still does not accept Jesus Christ as Son of God, though they don't do much persecuting any more.  Catholics and "daughters" still teach several heresies, but they don't do much persecuting these days.  

And yes - there are forces of immorality which have invaded public "entertainment" forms.  As the "folks" loose their connection to family, and to belief in God, there is nothing to stem the tide.   We believers think we are immune to TV violence or other immoralities, but recent neurological research says otherwise.  The more we witness (by viewing) the more our brains are changed.  We become programed to repeat the actions we have witnessed.  Our resistance to temptation is weakened.  "By beholding" we actually do "become changed."

Exactly HOW does the Antichrist oppose Christ?    My answer would be, "In every possible way!"  

THE Antichrist is behind every single one of the opposing movements.  Exactly which group will become most prominent in the latter days - we don't know yet.  Maybe a new group will emerge.  Maybe more than one of the traditionally opposing groups will combine.   Maybe all of the groups will be forced to submit to a new "leader", who promises peace and security. 

(IMHO) THE Antichrist is Satan himself.   He (or a human he is channeling) "will sit in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God".  

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 12/20/2017 at 4:11 PM, JoeMo said:

All of these kings ruled Israel in succession.  Rome never ruled Israel after 70AD. In fact, the Temple had likely already been destroyed when John wrote Revelation.  The 5 who have fallen were Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece.  The one that "is" (at least from John's perspective was Rome; so the end-time kingdom cannot be Rome.  The 7th King is the Ottoman Empire, and the 8th is a resurgence of the Islamic Caliphate.  That's my OPINION - not a doctrine carved in granite.  What nations are gathering to make war against Israel - Arab/Muslim countries!  How many Catholic mobs are running around beheading people?  People used to believe the earth was flat.  Just cuz that was the prevailing view 600 years ago doesn't mean it's sacred or right.  Just cuz Protestants believed the Pope was the antichrist 400 years ago doesn't mean their opinions were sacred or right.  The whole world has never been in a global state of crisis like we face now.  Never before (at least since the flood) has humanity had the power to destroy the earth (several times over, if necessary).  The church (no denomination implied) has never been in a state of pending apostasy such as it is now.

 

According to Rev. 13:8,  "All who dwell on the earth will worship him" - the Beast ruling through his little horn.   The entire world - including every nation - would never submit to one leader, unless they are first primed to do so.  For the entire world to submit to one ruler - "the man of sin" - the Antichrist - who "will sit in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God", several things have to happen first:

1.  Believers must be rendered ignorant (of God's word), and distracted.  That way they won't recognize a lie, or speak up to warn folks.   Most "Christians" today can barely tell you the story of Noah's flood, much less the story of Ruth or Joseph, or Joshua.  Most are only concerned with paychecks and entertainment. 

2.  The world must reach a state of complete FEAR of annihilation.   (Yep.  We are getting close to that one.)

3.  The world must label Jews and Muslims and anyone else of strong religious persuasions as a threat to world peace.  (They have already been labeled as prejudiced and a threat to domestic tranquility.)     

4.  The world must be brought to financial collapse and ruin, and chaos.  (This could happen any day.  It only takes one domino to fall. )

The world is ready.  It is primed.  The LORD is holding back the winds, in order to save a few more.   

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

4 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Believers must be rendered ignorant (of God's word), and distracted.  That way they won't recognize a lie, or speak up to warn folks.

"Let no one in any way deceive or entrap you, for that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first (2 Thes. 2:3).

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 12/20/2017 at 9:26 PM, TrevorL said:

The principal emphasis should be on faith, not Law. True faith brings forth the fruits of faith, the fruits of the Spirit. Attempts at Law Keeping fail Romans 7.

What is the principal characteristic of the great apostasy of 2 Thess 2 ?  Lawlessness.  Literally, "without law". 
What is the principal characteristic of those to whom Jesus says, "Depart from me" ?  Lawlessness.

So -- evidently those who are not in apostasy and are not sent away will be doing something good with God's law.  Ezekiel 11 and 36 tell us that those who are filled with the Spirit will be careful to obey God's instructions.

In both Hebrew and Greek the word "faith" includes "faithfulness" -- the two can't be separated, unless you are interested in having dead faith (James 2).

Most common interpretations of Romans 7 fail because they ignore what Paul taught in Romans 6, where he specifically says what "law" we are freed from -- sin.  The woman in Romans 7 whose husband died is free from the law of her husband, but she's not free to be promiscuous or be a harlot or be lawless.  She is free to marry another man.  When she marries again, her marriage to the second husband will be governed by the same laws of marriage that governed her first marriage.  Romans 6 explains who the first and second husband represent.

Romans 7 is written specifically to "those who know the Law". Few Christian know the law well enough to recognize whether the "law of her husband" used in Paul's illustration is found in God's Law of Moses.  Those who don't know the Law shouldn't be interpreting Romans 7.

[Ron Amnsn]

Paul says that the apostasy in 2Thess 2 was "already at work".  So it's likely that many of the Christian theologians, pastors, and teachers from that time to our time were influenced by the great apostasy.

What criteria do you use to tell whether a particular teaching is part of the apostasy?

There must be a dependable way to tell.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Ron,

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Romans 7 is written specifically to "those who know the Law". Few Christian know the law well enough to recognize whether the "law of her husband" used in Paul's illustration is found in God's Law of Moses.  Those who don't know the Law shouldn't be interpreting Romans 7.

From what you have stated we most probably have a different assessment of Law and faith, and you suggest that I am unqualified to understand Romans 7. My understanding is that faith, when allowed to develop in a sincere and humble disposition produces true obedience and faithfulness. In contrast, perhaps the greatest example of failure to keep the Law is where Paul draws attention to his experience when he considered the 10th Law:

Romans 7:7-11 (ASV): 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: 8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. 9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; 10 and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: 11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.  

On the other hand the environment of faith is set almost in contrast to the Law environment, as the very environment to cure the problem of Romans 7, the means of deliverance from this sinning, body of death that fails to keep the Law, especially when in a Law environment:

Romans 8:1-4 (ASV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

[8thdaypriest]

The Law vs faith has been debated on several other threads.   Maybe we can stick to the subject of "the apostasy" which ensnares and deceives believers, to prepare the way for the "Man of Sin" to "sit in the Temple showing himself that he is God".  

I personally do not believe there is just one way to "fall away" - or for "the church" to fall away.   There are several ways.  If we get all focused on just one point of doctrine, we may be ensnared by something we were not watching for. 

The seeds of the "falling away" can be false doctrine - for sure - (that grace somehow replaces anything considered "the law"), but there are several other seeds (planted but not yet come to fruition in the early church).  Paul talks about the "cares of this life", and fears of persecution, and laziness, and selfishness, and lust, and social pressures, etc. etc. etc.  

IF (big IF) it is a false teaching (in the church) that will prepare the way for the Evil One - the "man of sin" to sit in the Temple and demand to be worshiped as God, what false teaching would that be??

State of the Dead maybe?   Or Sunday sacredness?   Or "Just believe" to be saved (no good works of love necessary)?  Or God will save everyone (Universalism)?   Or maybe the Veneration of Saints??   Or the Pope as the voice of Christ? 

Or - will more than one false teaching pave the way for deception and the "churches" acceptance of the Man of Sin ? 

Wasn't Gnosticism already taught back in Paul's day?   That was one of those deceptions.  It said one must deeply experience evil, before one can resist it.  

Was that the one which taught that the flesh doesn't matter, therefore nothing we do in the flesh matters? 

[8thdaypriest]

If Satan gets rid of all the true witnesses, there will be no one left to oppose him.   Would not this be a way for Satan to prepare his way?   There is more than one way for Satan to get rid of all those pesky witnesses.   Satan doesn't have to kill them all.   He can distract them, and divert them in other ways - just so they are not focused to oppose him by speaking out.  The blood of martyrs just proved to be fertilizer to grow more believers.   ( Though he may try that technique again in the last days.)

[Ron Amnsn]

21 hours ago, TrevorL said:

On the other hand the environment of faith is set almost in contrast to the Law environment, as the very environment to cure the problem of Romans 7, the means of deliverance from this sinning, body of death that fails to keep the Law, especially when in a Law environment:

Romans 8:1-4 (ASV): 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I don't think the the Bible ever sets faith (which always includes faithfulness) in contrast to the Law (the instructions of God to which a person of faith is faithful).  Paul seems to be contrasting walking after the flesh as opposed to walking in the Spirit (which causes people to be careful to obey God's instructions).

The message you get from the passage in Romans 8:1-4 will depend on how you interpret the key phrases.  Some people interpret "the law of sin and death" as referring to the whole body of law contained in the Books of Moses -- an interpretation that is not taught in the Scriptures.  I think Paul refers to the fundamental principle that those who sin will die (unless God intervenes).

Verse 4 shows that obedience to the law is the end result that Paul expects for believers, which makes sense since we are followers of Jesus who lived according to God's Law of Moses.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ron,

5 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Verse 4 shows that obedience to the law is the end result that Paul expects for believers, which makes sense since we are followers of Jesus who lived according to God's Law of Moses.

I appreciate your response. For my part I would place more emphasis on faith and its outcome and less emphasis on Law and Law keeping than what you seem to be suggesting. I feel that it would be difficult to explain and resolve our differences in a brief way, and as 8thdaypriest has suggested, we may be off topic.

 

Kind regards

Trevor