1 John 2:18 - a preterist nightmare

[philpott]

For preterists (including orthodox), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 AD, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour," depending on your translation.

[philpott]

Hitch:

You totally miss the point. If the existence of many antichrists defined the fact that those were the last days, there cannot be another period with those same identifying characteristics. Otherwise, you cannot prove that those really were the last days.

Philpott

[Hitch]

There are also jews and there were jews then. Your idea just doesnt hold water. there were antichrists and christians then why is that no longer possible?

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

03-13-2003 @ 10:40 PM
philpott:

Hitch:

You totally miss the point. If the existence of many antichrists defined the fact that those were the last days, there cannot be another period with those same identifying characteristics. Otherwise, you cannot prove that those really were the last days.

Philpott The defining event is the Destruction. And as things came to a head its only reasonable to expect a surge on the ememies part.

Nice try but this notion is strained beyond credibility just as this 'nightmare' has never so much as raised a neck hair. But the real problem is John's announcement and your appearently contrary view. I have no reason or need to 'prove' what John states plainly.

take care

Hitch

[Faramir]

03-13-2003 @ 05:37 PM
philpott:

For preterists (including orthodox), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 AD, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour," depending on your translation.

Thanks for starting this new thread philpott, and thanks for using the term orthodox preterist. :thumb:

For those lazy people like me :tongue: I will post the text of the verse in question.


1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

Now on to the "problem" this causes for preterist.

Like Hitch said, it was the destruction of the temple that defined the end times. The introduction of and increase of "antichrists" was just one of the (many) signs of that the end times were near.

In this verse John is talking about the arrival of the antichrist as if this were a recent phenomenon (even now many antichrist have appeared). It is the newness and/or large number of the antichrist that are a sign of he end times.

There were many signs of the "end times" including the introduction and increase of "antichrists".

This verse is much more problematic for futurist.

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

The timing verses are clear. The "end times" were to be soon.

In Christ

Faramir

[CT292]

For preterists (incl. orthodox), 1 John 2:18 is a tremendous problem. Most preterists will readily admit that there are many antichrists today. On the other hand, they allege that the time indicators like "last time" of the text prove that it refers to 70 AD. In this text we find that if the preterists are correct that "last time" refers to 70 Ad, then there can never be another age where "many antichrists" exist. That was the defining characteristic of the "last time" or "last hour."


Speaking as one of those orthodox preterists who readily admits that there are "many antichrists today", this current application is used in a sense of ethics rather than of prophetic fulfillment. Thus, the various Popes in history are "antichrists" (WCF XXV:6) in an ethical way and not in any prophetic way.

Even the late Dr. Bahnsen, who was a preterist, nevertheless had taught that the Beast of Revelation 13 was typified in our current godless civil government. (cf. Helping the Poor Without Feeding the Beast (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe086.htm)). Yet he also taught that Imperial Rome was the prophetic fulfillment of Revelation 13-19.

As for 1 John 2:18, the preterist interpretation is inescapable: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time."

See also, 1 John 4:3: "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John lived in the "last times" when his prophecy would find fulfillment. Yet this does not rule out other "types" of antichrists in the future who are but pale imitations of the original prophetically fulfillied ones in John's day. You've no doubt heard the term, "copycat killers" Thus, current antichrists are mere "copycats" of the original ones, but are not to be seen as fulfilling any bible prophecy which has already been fulfilled.

Colin

[GrayPilgrim]

The problem with linking it to the destruction, as I see it, is that 1 John is genreally dated to after the Gospel of John which is dated to c. 80 thus pushing 1 John to around c.80-5 AD. So unles we have an anaphoric use here of " from this we know that it is the last hour," this must refer to a different last hour than that of which you speak. Moreover, for an interprettaion ot be dependent on a pre-70 AD date of authorship for any book has always bothered me as any guess is jsut as good as another. So really all one has to do is prove, as impossible as that in reality is, a post 70 AD date for the Gospels and Revelation and then all of the NT is anaphoric describing the old events and we are left with Porphry and Schweitzer in charge of our theology.

GP

[Jaltus]

Actually, I have never heard of any date for I John that is earlier than 80 AD (with one exception, some guy who said I John was written first, and G of John was a reply to its unbalanced view of Christ).

Of course this entire debate misses the point of what "hour" means to John anyway. If you read his gospel carefully (and in a non-NIV translation), you will see that hour means anything after the crucifixion and resurrection had become inevitable. Thus, all of our history since the cross is during that hour.

[GrayPilgrim]

:thumb: Thanks jaltus.

[philpott]

Jaltus - I totally agree that all of history since the crucifixion is the last hour. In fact, 1 John 2:18 proves that fact. This is my point. If many antichrists still exist, as they do, then this verse tells us we are still in the last time or hour. However, preterists have established their time texts as absolute presuppositions and are so blinded thereby that they cannot even see the point.
As for quoting Greg Bahnsen, I like him in certain areas. He is great on refuting atheism, evolution and scholastic problems. However, he had too much seminary education to truly understand the Bible. Most Presbyterians have this problem.

[CT292]

Posted by GrayPilgrim on 03-13-2003 09:18 PM: The problem with linking it to the destruction, as I see it, is that 1 John is genreally dated to after the Gospel of John which is dated to c. 80 thus pushing 1 John to around c.80-5 AD. So unles we have an anaphoric use here of " from this we know that it is the last hour," this must refer to a different last hour than that of which you speak. Moreover, for an interprettaion ot be dependent on a pre-70 AD date of authorship for any book has always bothered me as any guess is jsut as good as another. So really all one has to do is prove, as impossible as that in reality is, a post 70 AD date for the Gospels and Revelation and then all of the NT is anaphoric describing the old events and we are left with Porphry and Schweitzer in charge of our theology.

What is essential to preterism is the doctrine of past fulfillment. This past fulfillment is not entirely dependent on the historic events of AD 70 and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem however prophetically significant that was in other NT passages (e.g. Matt 24).

So even if it is granted that 1 John was composed in AD 80, it does not teach a future fulfillment of prophecy thousands of years long or to be fulfilled in a few thousands years from John's own lifetime. What his Epistle does teach is the contemporary fulfillment of prophecy in John's own life time, whether that is pre-AD 70 or post AD 70.

While its true that modern preterism puts great stress on the AD 70 destruction of the Temple for prophetic fulfillment, not all preterists have historically emphasised this point in the same way. Other preterists for example saw some of the NT prophecies fulfilled in our past, but after AD 70, even up to the 5th century AD at the fall of Imperial Rome.

Thus, preterism is not effectively challenged by an alleged AD 80 date of composition for 1 John. However, I don't personally accept an AD 80 composition of that Epistle. Those who propose that date usually also propose an erroneous late date view of Revelation as well. (And BTW preterism can also be defended by a late date view of Revelation too).

Colin

[CT292]

I totally agree that all of history since the crucifixion is the last hour. In fact, 1 John 2:18 proves that fact. This is my point. If many antichrists still exist, as they do, then this verse tells us we are still in the last time or hour.

This is stretching the word "hour" beyond any reasonable definition to make it apply to "all of history since the crucifixion". I John 2:18 does not "prove" that "the last hour" applies to all of history merely because many antichrists still exist.

John was addressing a particular readership in his own day. If someone were to tell you today that "it is the last hour", would you automatically assume that this warning also applied to hundreds of future generations as well? The use of the word "hour" clearly implies a short duration of time which most likely referred to the short period of the seige of Jerusalem in AD 67-70.


However, preterists have established their time texts as absolute presuppositions and are so blinded thereby that they cannot even see the point.

On the contrary, it is non-preterists and their own presuppositions which blind them to the fact that many of the NT prophecies were relevant to the first generation of Christians who read them and saw them fulfilled in their own lifetimes.

Many non-preterists tend to forget that the Bible was completed 2000 years ago and the NT writers were primarily addressing Christians who lived during those dangerous and perilous times. Thus, many non-preterists tend to interpret the NT as if it were written just yesterday and meant for our present generation. Hence, the phrase, "newspaper exegesis" accurately describes how they misinterpret the bible according to the latest media reports. The 1991 Gulf War inspired this end times paranoid frenzy at that time, and no doubt, the coming Iraq War will do the same again. There is nothing new under the sun.


As for quoting Greg Bahnsen, I like him in certain areas. He is great on refuting atheism, evolution and scholastic problems. However, he had too much seminary education to truly understand the Bible. Most Presbyterians have this problem.

This is a totally ignorant comment and is clearly designed to fallaciously poison the well and discredit Bahnsen and presbyterianism. Such slander is unfit behaviour for any Christian and is a violation of the ninth commandment.

Colin

[Jaltus]

John was addressing a particular readership in his own day. If someone were to tell you today that "it is the last hour", would you automatically assume that this warning also applied to hundreds of future generations as well? The use of the word "hour" clearly implies a short duration of time which most likely referred to the short period of the seige of Jerusalem in AD 67-70. Try reading my previous post.

Here it is:
Of course this entire debate misses the point of what "hour" means to John anyway. If you read his gospel carefully (and in a non-NIV translation), you will see that hour means anything after the crucifixion and resurrection had become inevitable. Thus, all of our history since the cross is during that hour.

If you really need me to, I can prove it. Heck, any commentary on John will tell you I am right on this one.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Any commentary Jaltus?? Even preterist ones?? I doubt that. The text cannot be read in isolation of the plethora of other near timing verses as well (and in light of the Discourse which is what John is alluding to). And there is a great inanity in this explaining away option that I will get to maybe tomorrow.... maybe someone else will pick up on it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I am not going to get too heavily into dating issues here, but I was recently at a seminar by Geisler entiteld "12 Points that Prove Christianity True" in which he categorically stated that the trend of modern evangelical scholarship is to place the dating of th entire NT no later than 70AD (though he did say with the exception of Revelation and then said that there are more and more placing an early date on that book as well).

And the mention of the two schools of preterist thought by C is also instructive. I am a 70AD preterist through and through but in the past the "later" date preterists flourished as well. There are not that many today, but they are still around.

[Jaltus]

Any commentary Jaltus?? Even preterist ones?? I doubt that. The text cannot be read in isolation of the plethora of other near timing verses as well (and in light of the Discourse which is what John is alluding to). And there is a great inanity in this explaining away option that I will get to maybe tomorrow.... maybe someone else will pick up on it. Yes, even preterist commentaries will agree with me, for my poiunt is that the last hour refers to everything from the crucifixion on.

It does not matter if you are preterist or not, the point is that the church exists during "the last hour" since the last hour is everything post resurrection and pre eschaton.

Make sense?

[CT292]

Of course this entire debate misses the point of what "hour" means to John anyway. If you read his gospel carefully (and in a non-NIV translation), you will see that hour means anything after the crucifixion and resurrection had become inevitable. Thus, all of our history since the cross is during that hour.

First of all, I usually do read non-NIV translations, mostly the KJV translation, but sometimes the NKJV too.

I did a search on the word "hour" in the KJV and its occurs 92 times in the KJV NT and 21 times in the Gospel of John. The word, hour (grk. Hora) is used as either a literal hour, or a relative estimate of an hour or similar short time period. It never refers to the entire history of the church.

However, in 1 John 2:18 the KJV uses the word "time" instead of "hour". The NKJV uses the word "hour". But every instance of the use of hour in the KJV and NKJV is either a literal or estimated hour of time. . For example, John in Rev. 9:15 distinguishes between "hour", "day", "month" and "year". In the Gospel of John chapter 1:39, he mentions the "tenth hour". In John 19:14, he mentions the sixth hour.

So I would be quite interested in seeing these alleged commentators which support your interpretation.

BTW many preterists believe that the term, "last days" refers to the entire NT era of the church (ie. the interadvental era). Some however, tend to view it as the last days of the old covenant era. I am still studying where I stand on that point.

Colin

[Jaltus]

Really? You sure about that?

John 2:4 refers to His ministry.

John 4:21 refers to the resurrection, which tore the temple veil in two.

John 4:23 refers to Christ in His ministry and to the resurrection.

John 5:25 same thing as above.

John 5:28 refers to the crucifixion itself.

I can keep going if you feel the need.

[Jaltus]

As for the commentators who agree with me, that would be Carson, Schnackenburg, Morris, Tasker, Bruce, and Brown. Those happen to be the ones I recall off the top of my head.

[CT292]

John 2:4 refers to His ministry.

"The hour" refers to his crucifixion which had "not yet come". But even if it did refer to his entire earthly ministry, it does not refer to the entire history of the church on earth.


John 4:21 refers to the resurrection, which tore the temple veil in two.

Again, the word "hour" does not refer to the entire church age, but rather to the time when the place of worship changes which you seem to concede.


John 4:23 refers to Christ in His ministry and to the resurrection.

Same as my reply above.


John 5:25 same thing as above.

This admittedly is the strongest verse to support your position. But I assert that the word "hour" refers to the beginning time of the gospel call to dead sinners. IOW it is the change of time and change of worship method that is referred to. This change of time from old covenant to new covenant is the "hour" that John refers to. This change has already occured by Christ's finished work on the cross and His resurrection. Therefore, the "hour" is no longer still happening. The change of time has already come.


ohn 5:28 refers to the crucifixion itself.

No this is wrong. This passage refers to the future general resurrection of the saved and lost at the same time, as verse 29 tell us. (And as per Amillennialism and Postmillennialism cf. Rev 20:11-13).

Colin

[Athanasius]

When we read this, we must ask, "the last hour of what age?" The orthodox partial preterist commentator John Gill believed it was the last hour of the Apostolic Age:


Ver. 18. Little children, it is the last time, &c. Or hour; not of the Jewish civil and church state, for that had been at an end for some time; this epistle was written some years after the destruction of Jerusalem; nor the last hour of the Gospel dispensation, or world to come, for this was but the first age of that; and much less the last hour of time, or of the present world itself, for that has been many hundreds of years since; but the last hour of the apostolic age. All the apostles were now dead, John was the last of them; perilous times were now coming on, impostors and heretics were rising apace, against which the apostle cautions his little children; and so still he writes to them, agreeably to their age and character, who, being such, were most likely to be imposed upon by those who lie in wait to deceive.

[Solly]

That's interesting Athan coz it raises the question of how we determine what the various last hour/hours, day/days, time/times do refer to. And it seems inconclusive to have the end of the age in 70ad, and then the end of another age a couple of decades later. How many ages are there?

I think it is also begging the question to say that, since the end of the age is 70ad, all references to such must be pre 70ad themselves, so John must have written before the fall.

[philpott]

Colin wrote, "This is a totally ignorant comment and is clearly designed to fallaciously poison the well and discredit Bahnsen and presbyterianism. Such slander is unfit behaviour for any Christian and is a violation of the ninth commandment."

Since when is it a sin to tell the truth? In fact, that where a lot of our problems in Christianity come from. We cannot tell the truth without having others become politically correct, like you. I complemented Bahnsen where he was good, and then I told the truth about his deficiencies.

As for Presbyterianism, again I told the truth. I greatly appreciate many, many contributions from Presbyterians. Probably 75% of my library is by Presbyterian authors. However, many serious errors are being propogated within the church by Presbyterianism, like Sabbatarianism, continuing to bind Christians under the law, rationalism, infant baptism and covenant theology, preterism, postmillennialism, presumed regeneration, etc. Virtually all of these errors are a result of too much academic thinking and not enough Scripture.

Ignorant, no. Just one in a million people who is willing to speak honestly.

Philpott

[philpott]

Once again, the preterists' presuppositions drive their thinking. As I have been saying from the start, 1 John 2:18 tells us that any period in which there are many antichrists is the "last time" or "last hour." Thus we are still in that last time as the existence of many antichrists testifies. Preterists may think that God's defining 2,000 years as the last time or last hour is unreasonable, but He has to be the judge of that, not the preterists. The definition is what God says it is, regardless of whether preterists think it fits or not.

I am still interested in a preterist explaining how the existence of many antichrists could have defined the period prior to 70 AD as the last time (according to 1 John 2:18), and yet many antichrists exist today, which according to preterists is not the last time. 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists defines the period, regardless of what you may claim defines the period. You cannot ignore what God says defines the period. Anyway, explain how we can have many antichrists today, and not be in the last days.

Again, this verse absolutely disproves the use of time texts in preterism whether preterists realize it or not.

[Jaltus]

CT292,

You are assuming the cricufixion is a one time event, meaning that it is a split second long, or just the time that Jesus was on the cross itself, but John clearly shows us that the crucifixion is the exultation of Christ, that His being lifted up onto the cross is His being lifted up into glory.

The crucifixion is not a momentary occurrence, it spectacularly has ramifications forever.

Did you even reference any of the commentators i mentioned, or are you just assuming you are right from reading your Bible? As I have said before, though not on this thread, GoJ is one of the most complex books in the entire NT, and a cursory reading will give you the gospel message, but you will miss the specific themes of the book.

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus,

Could you re-reference the commentaries?

I am assuming Schnackenberg (which I could have gotten for you dirt cheap in German, but nooooooooo :tongue: ).

GP


Today @ 05:47 PM
Jaltus:

CT292,

You are assuming the cricufixion is a one time event, meaning that it is a split second long, or just the time that Jesus was on the cross itself, but John clearly shows us that the crucifixion is the exultation of Christ, that His being lifted up onto the cross is His being lifted up into glory.

The crucifixion is not a momentary occurrence, it spectacularly has ramifications forever.

Did you even reference any of the commentators i mentioned, or are you just assuming you are right from reading your Bible? As I have said before, though not on this thread, GoJ is one of the most complex books in the entire NT, and a cursory reading will give you the gospel message, but you will miss the specific themes of the book.

[Dee Dee Warren]

03-15-2003 @ 02:46 PM
Jaltus:

Yes, even preterist commentaries will agree with me, for my poiunt is that the last hour refers to everything from the crucifixion on.

It does not matter if you are preterist or not, the point is that the church exists during "the last hour" since the last hour is everything post resurrection and pre eschaton.

Make sense?

That then is illegitimate use for you are attempting to bring in preterist commentaries to say they would agree with you on the very point in which you in disagreement with preterism. And for the record, preterism does not teach that everything from the resurrection on is the "last hour" as a matter of fact. They do believe that even during Christ's ministry it was the "last days" but it did not become the "last hour" until the event was so close that it was absolutely urgent.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Philpott, have you considered posting a Gym challenge on a preterism-related subject? We have plenty of preterists who would love to take you on I am sure.

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

My argument was and has been that in John the last hour refers to the crucifixion and all events thereafter.

I have never read a single commentary that disagrees with this opinion. I do not believe it holds any significance for the preterism/futurism debate, with the possible exception of full preterists.

GP,

The coomentaries are listed at this (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=36564#post36564) post, at the top of this page.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hmm, Jaltus I would submit then you have not read many preterist commentaries, and it really has nothing to do with full preterists, I would agree with them here. DeMar for one as a preterist commentator would agree with me. Genty may agree with you, but I find Gentry somewhat inconsistent in several areas with this topic.

[Solly]

03-14-2003 @ 01:21 AM
Faramir:

Like Hitch said, it was the destruction of the temple that defined the end times.

This is only true for the preterist, of course (and the dispensationalist in their schema); there are those who do not link together the endof the age and the dest of the temple.



The introduction of and increase of "antichrists" was just one of the (many) signs of that the end times were near.

But what reference does that have to the context of John. He is more than likely writing to churches in Asia Minor, so what would they worry about the Temple? He does not mention the temple at all in this letter. You are reading preterist (theological, not exegetical) ideas into the text here. All he says is, it is the last hour, and the fact of there being many antichrists is the clear sign of it. And one should also bear in mind that his use of the phrase "last hour" is not strictly chronological, but descriptive of the times and seasons, of the character, not the temporal succession. It is the last hour, because it is the time in which God is openly working, as promised, towards a conclusion, the coming consummation.


In this verse John is talking about the arrival of the antichrist as if this were a recent phenomenon (even now many antichrist have appeared). It is the newness and/or large number of the antichrist that are a sign of he end times.

There were many signs of the "end times" including the introduction and increase of "antichrists".

If the sign of the last hour is that there are many antichrists, then by extension, if there are many antichrists around today, we are in the last hour also. No difference is no difference at all. So that either we are in the end times, which most of us do not accept, or our understanding of John's reference to the "last hour" is not right.

I would contend that the views given above by our preterist friend reflect - both on the exegesis of this passage, and the redating of John's writings - the NeoPostMill agenda, to relocate "difficult" passages to before the 70ad watershed, thus making room for the supposed advance of the Gosple without opposition, even in the last days of this present age.

(Whoever it was that made the silly comment that there were Jews then and Jews now was well off base. The fact of there being jews is not given as a sign of the last hour.)

[philpott]

Dee Dee:

I am not sure it is worth my time to take this further. Trying to converse with preterists on this thread reminds me of the Greg Bahnsen / Alan Stein debate over Christianity vs atheism. Bahnsen kept proving that Stein could not hold to any point of his worldview without standing on Christian presuppositions. At one point, Bahsen said that Stein could not even balance his checkbook without relying on Christian presuppositions. Stein immediately replied, "But I do balance my checkbook."
This is what I see the preterists doing in response to my comments. Instead of stopping and reasoning about the implications of the text, 1 John 2:18, they just keep on saying "the time texts," "the time texts." I have to believe that some of them are perceptive enough to understand my point if they would just stop and think. Apparently they just will not.
Since I am new, I don't know what you are referring to in a gym challenge. Explain further.

Thank you,
Philpott

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Philpott:

Sure.. if you go to the main forums page there is a section of TWeb called "The Gym." It is in that section where structured one on one debates take place. The way it works is that someone such as yourself would post a challenge in the "Coach's Quarters" and other TWeb members would then accept your challenge and negotiate terms of debate. You would be free to accept or reject any offered challenger. Once an agreement is reached the two participants have their own thread and have a structured debate. A totally separate thread is opened for spectator commentary. It allows a lot of focus on an issue. You seem interested in challenging preterism, and we have a lot of preterists here where if you start a thread you may have to deal with a lot of various and sundry comments... so I thought the one on one debate might be good for you to deal with one of the best preterist defenders of your choosing and it would be just you two. Just a thought.

[philpott]

Dee Dee:

Thank you for the suggestion. I was just about ready to abandon the website since the discussion has been so futile. I will give it some thought. I sounds like the gym may be a much better forum for the type of discussion I would be interested in.

Thanks again,
Philpott

[philpott]

Solly - Thank you for the reply. The preterists presuppositions apparently are preventing them from even understanding the point.

One other issue that goes along with the problems of preterism is this concept of what John "wrote" and what John "meant," as constantly referred to by preterists. Has anyone every heard of the concept of revelation. Do you not understand that God's Word has existed from eternity past. John's "writing" of the book of 1 John was not the origin of the book. God Himself wrote all of the books Himself before the foundation of the world, only to be revealed through men in time. Through the years in dealing with preterists I have had to constantly remind them of this point, usually to no avail. They constantly infer that the men themselves wrote the books. This is a total denial of the doctrine of Biblical inspiration.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well Phill we certainly want you to stay.. and there are plenty of other things to dicuss other than preterist issues (egad did I say that?) here.. so please jump into some others. And I hope to see you in the Gym, perhaps I may accept a challenge from you, who knows....

[Jaltus]

Yeah, but just because she accepts the challenge does not mean she will ever reply to you.

I think I've only been waiting for a little over a month for a reply from her.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh. You had said we both could take our time.. my oh my you are eager for a beating. Should we perhaps make spectacles out of ourselves and do some kind of Gym debate? Only if you promise not to call me an idiot when we are done.

[Faramir]

Today @ 03:51 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Sigh. You had said we both could take our time.. my oh my you are eager for a beating. Should we perhaps make spectacles out of ourselves and do some kind of Gym debate? Only if you promise not to call me an idiot when we are done.

Can he call you an idiot during the debate?

:duh:

[Jaltus]

LOL, DDW, am I actually getting to you?

No, I'd rather not since I may soon be involved in my third debate, and this would be my fourth. I am just pointing out that our thread will get trimmed if left alone any longer.

Maybe a quick bump to keep it around? Seriously, take your time, as long as it is not a year. :wink:

I cannot believe I got under your skin so easily! Wooohooo, go me!

:yipee: <- Jaltus doing the "I annoyed DDW dance."

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 03:55 PM
Jaltus:

LOL, DDW, am I actually getting to you?

No, I'd rather not since I may soon be involved in my third debate, and this would be my fourth. I am just pointing out that our thread will get trimmed if left alone any longer.

Ahh, chicken. :whip: :rofl:

[Faramir]

OK guys, this is one thread I really want to see.

So I went ahead and bumped it.

:argh:

[Dee Dee Warren]

See that?? Keeping control of my swarm is like trying herd cats. It just doesn't work. :argh:

[Jaltus]

Why would you hurt cats?

Bad DDW!

As for chicken, are you seriously saying that I am a chicken for turning down a debate with you when we already have one started that you have not posted in within the last month? For shame!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yep. I've got moxy don't I?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Bad DDW!



Only Boom is allowed to say that. And he says it quite frequently. And now that we have hijacked Phil's thread, perhaps we should let him have it back.... be a god Pet Jaltus and stop interrupting.

[Faramir]

Today @ 04:11 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

See that?? Keeping control of my swarm is like trying herd cats. It just doesn't work. :argh:

Meow, er I mean buzzz buzzz.

[philpott]

How about returning to the issue of 1 John 2:18 everyone. I still have a couple of serious questions and comments on thread #3 that the preterists apparently don't want to touch.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Soory about that Phil. We got carried away.

[CT292]

To philpott:


Response to Colin

Colin wrote, "This is a totally ignorant comment and is clearly designed to fallaciously poison the well and discredit Bahnsen and presbyterianism. Such slander is unfit behaviour for any Christian and is a violation of the ninth commandment."


Since when is it a sin to tell the truth?

It is a sin to tell a lie and you had done that about the late Greg Bahnsen and without a shred of supporting evidence to back up your slander.


In fact, that where a lot of our problems in Christianity come from. We cannot tell the truth without having others become politically correct, like you. I complemented Bahnsen where he was good, and then I told the truth about his deficiencies.

I had to laugh out loud at being called "politically correct". I'm probably one of the most politically incorrect persons around, since I happen to be a Theonomist and a Calvinist.

As for Bahnsen's alleged "deficiences", you are entitled to your opinion, however, to those many who have known him personally and have reading his works extensively, they would consider your comments as being totally ignorant of the man and his writings.

And to say as you did that Bahnsen had "too much seminary education to truly understand the Bible" is to condemn every seminary graduate past and present. Bahnsen only spent 3 years at seminary (1970-1973) which is the normal minimum for every reformed minister.

And by what objective standard is "too much seminary" education anyway? Your comment seems to be more of an anti-intellectual rant, than a valid ethical statement.


As for Presbyterianism, again I told the truth.

You are only revealing your own hatred and ignorance of Presbyterianism by claiming that they have "too much seminary education to truly understand the Bible". All denominations have seminaries, so why do you single out presbyterianism? Even Baptists have Seminaries. And if presbyterians are so ignorant of the Bible as you claim, then why do you bother to have "75%" of your own personal library filled with presbyterian authors?


However, many serious errors are being propogated within the church by Presbyterianism, like Sabbatarianism, continuing to bind Christians under the law, rationalism, infant baptism and covenant theology, preterism, postmillennialism, presumed regeneration, etc.

Many serious errors are being progated by many denominations, not just by liberal presbyterians. But the alleged "errors" you cite such as "Sabbatarianism" are matters that are honestly debatable among all Bible believing Christians. To accuse one pro-sabbatarian side of being "unable to truly understand the Bible" is an ignorant comment.

Your accusation of "rationalism" is another ignorant comment. What would you prefer, irrationalism?? But every denomination has been susceptible to hyper-rationalistic views at one time or another. There is nothing inherent in presbyterianism that makes it prone to your implied derogatory definition of rationalism.

"infant baptism". Again this is an ignorant comment, since many Christian denominations hold to infant baptism and thus, it is not something unique to Presbyterianism. And again, many bible believing Christians have had differing views on that issue. But presbyterians at least will accept a previously "immersed" Baptized Christian as a full member without having him "re-baptized". Re-baptism is one of the central errors of the Baptists, which is ironic since there is no NT command or example to re-baptise anyone.

"covenant theology, preterism, postmillennialism". Many non-presbyterians have held to these beliefs and thus, they are not inherent to presbyterianism and nor are they "errors".

"presumed regeneration, etc." Again, this view is not inherent to presbyterianism, but I wouldn't waste time debating it with a Baptist since many baptists themselves also hold to a form of "presumed regeneration" known as Arminianism: "believe in Christ and you will then be regenerated and then you can be baptized."


Virtually all of these errors are a result of too much academic thinking and not enough Scripture.

And which specific scripture proves this statement of yours? How much is "too much academic thinking"? Who makes this final judgement of others?

The fact is that all the alleged errors you have cited need to be challenged individually from Scripture and not just dismissed a priori as if they are merely the result of "too much academic thinking".

BTW is it also possible to have too little academic thinking? Again, who decides that and on what objective basis?

Colin

[Jaltus]

I find it humorous when people say seminary is bad, yet Jesus was a Rabbi, meaning a seminary prof of his time. Paul went to seminary and was a Rabbi as well.

How little people understand the Bible nowadays.

[Dee Dee Warren]

"covenant theology, preterism, postmillennialism". Many non-presbyterians have held to these beliefs and thus, they are not inherent to presbyterianism and nor are they "errors".



I am not a Presbyterian or Calvinist of any variety yet I am a covenant (pretty much), preterist, postmillennialist. I am pretty Baptist in a lot of my views.

[philpott]

Colin:

I assume you are Presbyterian. I am ex-Presbyterian, but I certainly do not hate Presbyterians. I have many dear brothers in that denomination. However, I do think that Presbyterians are particularly susceptible to rationalism because they are so intellectual. That can be very good, or it can be very bad. I have certainly seen both.

You made some good points in your tirade. I won't comment since I would really like to get back to the 1 John discussion, but I do accept many of your criticisms. I apologize for making comments that were way too broad.

As for Bahnsen, I loved the man in his field. I have all of his books and about 500 of his tapes. He has his strong points and his weak ones. Again, I apologize that my opinion insulted you. I need to watch my comments more closely. If quoting and defending the truths of Scripture offends someone, then that is too bad. But I do not want to make enemies over my opinion, when it is just that - my opinion.

By the way, I am a strong Calvinist, but I am not completely theonomic - but I do agree with most of the principles. I am a fan of Rushdoony also, again in his place.

Anyway, please accept my apologies.

Philpott

[philpott]

Jaltus:

I am not saying that seminary is inherently bad. Unfortuanately, I let some personal frustrations slip in my comments in that I have been very frustrated for the past couple of years in dealing with Presbyterians who place their seminary learning and taught presuppositions ahead of the Bible. So, in some cases, I think seminary can be a tremendous obstacle. However, for many others I am sure it is a tremendous blessing. I just have not had the pleasure of dealing with those men.

By the way, Christ did not go to seminary. Remember, one of the criticisms against Him was, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned."

Philpott

[CT292]

Reply to Philpott:


I do think that Presbyterians are particularly susceptible to rationalism because they are so intellectual. That can be very good, or it can be very bad. I have certainly seen both.

Hi Phil,

I think that all Christian groups are susceptible to "rationalism" at some points. Yet Christianity is a Biblically rational faith (as opposed to the irrationalism of Buddhism for example). So the real issue is to distinguish between a Biblical use of our rational faculties and an unbiblical use.

For example, I would cite the orthodox presbyterian, Gordon Clark who clearly went too far in a rationalist direction in apologetics. Presbyterian theologians, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge also went too far in an unbiblical rationalist direction in their apologetics. This is seen in their use of "common sense realism" philosophy of Thomas Reid which was adopted by all of the 19th century Princeton theologians (as well seen in their use of the propositionalist Theologian, Francis Turretin's textbook on Elenctic Theology).

Yet the presbyterian theologian, Cornelius Van Til was the first to make a clear and consistent break with the unbiblical Rationalism of the Princeton Theologians since the days of John Calvin. J. Gresham Machen had timely recognised the value of Van Til's distinctive views though he had never adopted them fully himself.

However, some parts of Presbyterianism also went in an irrational direction by those who had espoused Liberalism.
But again, all these historic examples of rationalism and irrationalism can also be found in the history of many other Christian denominations too such as Baptists and Anglicans, as any fair study of them would reveal. Thus, there is nothing unique or "particular" about the alleged "Presbyterian susceptibility" to unbiblical rationalism. And there is nothing wrong with using our intellects as God had intended them to be used.

But all of us are as equally susceptible to unbiblical rationalism since we have minds that are still affected by sin (Rom 7:23), which is why Paul tells us to be renewed in our minds Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23; and to avoid the unbiblical rationalism of the Gentiles who walk in the vanity of their mind Eph 4:17 and who mind earthly things Phil 3:19 and to avoid having a fleshly mind Col 2:18. Paul warned us against any philosphy that was after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ..

OTOH Biblical rationalism is taught by Jesus when he told us to love God with all our mind Matt 22:37. And the Bereans were commended for their willingness to receive the gospel with all readiness of mind Acts 17:11. And Paul had said of himself that he had been Serving the Lord with all humility of mind Acts 20:19 and that we are to have the mind of Christ 1 Cor 2:16 as well as have a humbleness of mind Col 3:12 and a sound mind 1 Tim 1:7.

Cornelius Van Til pointed us to the best weapon against all rationalistic and irrationalist philosophy: The presupposition of the truth of God's infallible Word in all thought. And Van Til was a presbyterian!.


As for Bahnsen, I loved the man in his field. I have all of his books and about 500 of his tapes. He has his strong points and his weak ones. Again, I apologize that my opinion insulted you.

I too have some small disagreements with the late Dr. Bahnsen such as in some parts of his commentary on Revelation for example.


I do accept many of your criticisms. I apologize for making comments that were way too broad....please accept my apologies

Apologies accepted, Phil.

Colin

[Jaltus]

I am not saying that seminary is inherently bad. Unfortuanately, I let some personal frustrations slip in my comments in that I have been very frustrated for the past couple of years in dealing with Presbyterians who place their seminary learning and taught presuppositions ahead of the Bible. So, in some cases, I think seminary can be a tremendous obstacle. However, for many others I am sure it is a tremendous blessing. I just have not had the pleasure of dealing with those men.The old joke is that seminary is where faith goes to die. For many that is true, but it is "their own stupid fault," as my wife is want to say. Seminary is to train the mind, the church is to train the heart, and the Bible is to train the soul. Being a student and a prof at seminary, I see both sides. Students often think that they can become spiritual through osmosis, as if hanging out with a spiritual person translates into your own personal holiness.

Besides, where would Satan attack more than at a seminary?


By the way, Christ did not go to seminary. Remember, one of the criticisms against Him was, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned." I did not say He went to seminary, I said He was the equivalent to a prof. I said Paul went to seminary.

[philpott]

Since the discussion of 1 John 2:18 apparently has died, I will chase a couple of other topics.

Jaltas wrote, "Students often think that they can become spiritual through osmosis, as if hanging out with a spiritual person translates into your own personal holiness."

True, but on the other hand, many (especially those who go to seminary) believe that those who go to seminary are more knowledgeable about the Bible and more intellectual than those who do not go to seminary. There are many of us who have not gone to seminary who have as much Biblical understanding as those who have gone. However, my experience has been that seminary graduates become quickly defensive when we do not bow at their feet acknowledging their intellectual superiority. They will not listen to our arguments or challenges to their positions because they apparently think that we are unworthy to challenge them.

At the Presbyterian church that I used to attend, I asked permission of the session (seminary graduates) to write papers outlining my understanding of the Bible versus the teaching of the church on some issues. The session immediately agreed that this was a great idea. (The church is preterist postmillennial.) For instance, concerning eschatology, I wrote a 15 page paper laying out the problems, as I saw them. I received no answer in the 9 months before I left the church and was visibly shunned by the elders from that point on. It was obvious, they considered me to be rebellious because I had a different understanding of the Bible, even though I could make a Biblical defense of my position and refutation of theirs. They would not (and I believe could not) refute my position from the Bible, whereas I showed many glaring discrepancies in their position. One would expect that they would at least correct my misunderstanding of those texts that I alleged proved their position to be unbiblical and contradictory. I think they owed me that much, since they were supposed to be in charge of my spiritual development.

I had several similar experiences with other Presbyterian pastors and elders. As soon as I started asking questions, challenging their position in a very respectful way, the conversation ended, as if I was unworthy of their explanation. On several cases, emails asking questions were unanswered. I have found reconstructionist, theonomist, postmils to be the most defensive even though I used to be one in good standing.

Jaltas wrote, "Besides, where would Satan attack more than at a seminary?"

Exactly, and that is where, it appears, the he has done some of his best work.

Again, Jaltas wrote, "I did not say He went to seminary, I said He was the equivalent to a prof. I said Paul went to seminary."

Again, having Biblical knowledge does not equate to seminary equivalency. Charles Spurgon had as much Biblical knowledge as anyone I have ever read, and he had no seminary training - but he studied diligently. As you said, look at Paul. He went to seminary and hated God passionately. In addition, he totally misunderstood the Bible.

It sounds as if I am anti-seminary. I am not. I am just being honest that my experience with many seminary graduates has been unfruitful and often adverse to my spiritual growth. Strangely, the men whom the Holy Spirit has used most in my life have been seminary graduates from Arminian schools who have totally rejected their Arminian seminary training and become strong Calvinists. They all admit that seminary helped them, but they had to un-learn (or reject) much of what they learned in seminary. In every case where I have disagreed with an elder from a Calvinistic seminary, I have been either shunned or ignored. Since Calvinism is the Gospel, our seminary graduates should not be so insecure.

Finally, however, the most insecure, abusive Pastor that I have ever dealt with was a Calvinistic Baptist pastor who had no seminary education (and also no secular college education.) Even though he was very Scriptural in most of his beliefs and very intelligent, he became extremely abusive with the asking of any question about his teachings. I think he felt threatened by me because of my college degree even though I showed great interest in his sermons. At that time, I was reading much Presbyterian literature and had many questions. He did not appreciate me giving serious consideration to their position. (I learned after leaving that church, that he had been abusive to many others in the past, also resulting in their departure.)

[philpott]

Again, I ask preterists to explain how their position can possibly make any sense. 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many anti-Christs defines a certain period as the "last time" or "last hour" depending on your Bible version. Preterists claim that this last time was the period ending at 70 AD. We all agree, I think, that there are many anti-Christs today, and yet we are not in the last time according to preterists. This makes absolutely no sense. According to this text, a period with many anti-Christs is the last time.

If I am wrong, then someone needs to correct me. If I am right, then some preterists need to start taking a hard look at their position because it cannot be correct according to this text.

Are we seeking the truth or intellectual debate?

Philpott

[John Reece]

Philpott,

Re:


the challenge refreshed
(post#58 )

Again, I ask preterists to explain how their position can possibly make any sense. 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many anti-Christs defines a certain period as the "last time" or "last hour" depending on your Bible version. Preterists claim that this last time was the period ending at 70 AD. We all agree, I think, that there are many anti-Christs today, and yet we are not in the last time according to preterists. This makes absolutely no sense. According to this text, a period with many anti-Christs is the last time.

If I am wrong, then someone needs to correct me. If I am right, then some preterists need to start taking a hard look at their position because it cannot be correct according to this text.

Are we seeking the truth or intellectual debate?

Philpott

Try putting your argument in the form of a syllogism.

:smile:

[Faramir]

03-27-2003 @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46356#post46356)
philpott:

Again, I ask preterists to explain how their position can possibly make any sense. 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists defines a certain period as the &quot;last time&quot; or &quot;last hour&quot; depending on your Bible version. Preterists claim that this last time was the period ending at 70 AD. We all agree, I think, that there are many antichrists today, and yet we are not in the last time according to preterists. This makes absolutely no sense. According to this text, a period with many antichrists is the last time.

If I am wrong, then someone needs to correct me. If I am right, then some preterists need to start taking a hard look at their position because it cannot be correct according to this text.

Are we seeking the truth or intellectual debate?

Philpott




03-27-2003 @ 05:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46380#post46380)
John Reece:

Philpott,


Try putting your argument in the form of a syllogism.

:smile:


I have followed the thread from the beginning and I think I know what Philpott is trying to say, so I will try to put it in the form of a syllogism (or two syllogisms as I see two different arguments I am not sure which one Philpott is trying to assert).

First, though let’s give the scripture verse in question:


1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1. 1 John 2:18 indicates that the appearance of many antichrist is a sign of the approaching of the end times.

2. Since there are more antichrists in the world today than ever before, the end times are near.

3. Therefore, preterist who say that the end times occurred in AD 70 are wrong.

Of course the problem with this syllogism is that it does not take the full text of 1 John 2:18 into account. The text is obviously talking about a time that is in the near future:

“it is the last time” present tense.

“even now are there many antichrists” present tense.

“it is the last hour” present tense. “

Furthermore nowhere in the text does it say that there will never be a time in the future with more antichrists. In fact the text indicates that the appearance of antichrists was a fairly recent phenomenon in the church. “and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come”. Therefore it could be that the first appearance of the antichrists was the sign. I am sure that most would agree that since that time there have continued to be antichrist, as defined by John, in the world. So it would be a pretty useless sign for anyone not living at the time 1 John was written.

This is another possible syllogism from Philpott’s post:

1 Preterist say that 1 John 2:18 is referring to the end times.

2 1 John 2:18 also says that the end times will be preceded by a rise in antichrists.

3 There are many antichrists in the world today.

4 Therefore, the end time must be in our future, and preterist are wrong.

The problem with this syllogism is that it assumes that the only time there will be many antichrist in the world is right before the end times. The text does not say that. In fact, other signs that were given as precursors to the “end times” were wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famine. Well these things have been going on for 2000 years since John wrote his epistle, and there have been “antichrists” in the world since then as well.

If anything, this verse is problematic for futurist. The time indicators clearly point to many antichrist alive at the time of the writing of the epistles. They also indicate that the end times were very close.

In addition it is only possible for antichrists to appear for the first time from within Christianity only once (any other time would be the second or third, etc.). Since John clearly says that the antichrist were around when he wrote his epistle, the coming of antichrist would hardly be a sign to anyone other than Johns original audience.

I hope I at least got close to the point you were trying to make Philpott. If not, let me assure you that I did not [i]intentionally[/b] misrepresent your position. As a preterist, I have people misrepresent my position all the time, and it is one of my biggest pet peeves.

This is my attempt to try to understand your position. If I am way off, you can let me know and we can go forward from there. IMHO this is the only way to conduct productive dialogue.

I look forward to your response.

[Solly]

A comment...

Yesterday @ 01:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48086#post48086)
Faramir:
1. 1 John 2:18 indicates that the appearance of many antichrist is a sign of the approaching of the end times.
--I think it is more the point that these are "the last days", not necessarily the end times.
2. Since there are more antichrists in the world today than ever before, the end times are near.
--Again, many antichrists are evidence that these are the "last times". "Last Times/Days" is a technical phrase, not a chron-ological statement. If I understand Philpott's pov, then he is critiqueing the idea the "Last Times" must = "End of the Age", and therefore an "Age" must have ended in 70ad to fulfill these passages.
3. Therefore, preterist who say that the end times occurred in AD 70 are wrong.
--This is still the right conclusion though. The times denoted as "The last time" are apparently obvious by the many antichrists, which therefore sets it apart from other times in which there are not many antichrists: those who fulfill the definition in vv 19-23

Since I do not come from a futurist position myself, I think there is some confusion between the use of the terms, "Last time/hour", "end times" - not scriptural, and "End of the Age."

Philpotts opening post did not refer to the "end times" but "Last time" in conjunction with the rise of many antichrists. I don't know if he is futurist or not, but his comment reflects an amill non pret interpretation of these verses, which sees "Last time" etc are referring to the character of the age post-ascension, not as a chronological division of time BC/AD, but as the invasion of the coming age into this present age.

[philpott]

John Reece and Faramir:

Thank you John for the suggestion (using a syllogism) and your explanation Faramir. I have been very busy for the past few days and had little time to keep up with the discussion. I am printing the discussion and taking it home tonight, where I do not have internet unfortunately, and will try to get back into the discussion tomorrow.

Have a nice evening,
Philpott

[philpott]

Here are a couple of syllogisms that somewhat explain the proposition:

The text under discussion:

1 John 2:18: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time.”



1st syllogism:

1 John 2:18 tells us that we can define the period called “the last time” by the existence of many antichrists.

At 70 AD, there were many antichrists. Therefore, according to 1 John 2:18, is was the last time.

Today, there are many antichrists. Therefore, according to 1 John 2:18, we are still in the last time.



2nd syllogism:

Preterists allege that the period of 70 AD was the exclusively the “last time.”

1 John 2:18 tells us that the “last time” can be identified by the existence of “many antichrists.”

There are many antichrists today.

Therefore, 70 AD cannot be the exclusive period included in the “last time.”




Faramir wrote, “The problem with this syllogism (his syllogism included on his post) is that it assumes the only time there will be many antichrists in the world is right before the end times. The text does not say that.”

The text says that the last time can be identified by the presence of many antichrists. It does not say that the last time can be identified by the first appearing of many antichrists. According to this text, any period with many antichrists is the last time. 70 AD was the last time, as today is still the last time, according to 1 John. If, according to the text, we know that 70 AD was the last time because there were many antichrists, how can there ever be another period with many antichrists? There cannot. Else, you could not identify any specific period as the last time. This is my point. It is devastating to preterism.

[John Reece]

This seems to be lacking:

A clear distinction between

(A) the meaning of "the last days" of OT prophecy and NT references to OT prophecy, and

(B) the meaning of "the last hour" referred to in 1 John.

Can you demonstrate that the meaning is the same in both cases?

[philpott]

John Reece:

You wrote, "This seems to be lacking." Then you ask me to do a comparison of the OT and NT use of "last time." I am not interested in chasing rabbits. What I have shown in this text is that the preterist usage of the time texts will not hold water. My premise is clear and simple. The text means what it says. No one seems to want to address my simple question.

How about turning the table around the other way. How about a preterist presenting a syllogism that proposes how an event can define a time period, and yet exist in another time period.

Philpott

[Faramir]

Today @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
philpott:

John Reece:

You wrote, "This seems to be lacking." Then you ask me to do a comparison of the OT and NT use of "last time." I am not interested in chasing rabbits. What I have shown in this text is that the preterist usage of the time texts will not hold water. My premise is clear and simple. The text means what it says. No one seems to want to address my simple question.

How about turning the table around the other way. How about a preterist presenting a syllogism that proposes how an event can define a time period, and yet exist in another time period.

Philpott

OK, not a problem with one slight modification. I think that instead of saying the event "defined" a time period, the preterist would say that the event was a "sign" of the coming of a period. Saying that the event "defined" the time is, I believe, a straw-man (although I do not think that it is intentional Philpott :smile: ).

Here's the text:


1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1. The text indicates that it is the last times; present tense as of the time of the writing. (For me this is sufficient, but I will go on for the sake of argument)

2. The text indicates that the audience "[had] heard that antichrists shall come; this indicates that there was a time in the recent past (from the writing of this letter) when there were no antichrists, but that antichrists had been prophesized.

3. The text indicates that there were, at the time of the writing antichrist; implying that it is the first appearance of antichrist that was a sign of the last times.

You are right that the text does not actually say that the "first appearance of antichrists will be a sign of the last times". But I have shown that it is clearly implied.

If the "last time" is a period of time that last for thousands of years, then what is the purpose of the verse.

John says "it is the last time" he then goes on to say how the appearance (or existence for the sake of argument) are a sign of the last times, and that antichrist are here. I will paraphrase the verse in question using this interpretation.

"Little children, we are now in the last time which will last for quite a while, earlier you were told that many antichrist will be a sign of the last time. Now, there are many antichrist so we know by that the last hour which will last for a long time, has now begun, but it will not be over for a long time."

You may not have a problem with this but let's take a closer look at the implications.

John's audience was told that during the last days, there would be antichrist. John tells them that the antichrists are now in the world. What then caused the start of this long period of end times? The rising up of many antichrist? Did this mark the beginning of the last time? If so, what was so significant about the rising of many antichrist that caused the last times to begin (and the next to last times to end)? If not, why mention the antichrists at all?

IMHO the clearest explanation of this passage is that the rising up of many antichrists was a sign that the much shorter end time (or as many translations say end hour) had begun.

Also Philpott, I think that John Reece made a very valid point here which you hastily blew off:


Posted by John Reece on 04-01-2003 05:24 PM:

This seems to be lacking:

A clear distinction between

(A) the meaning of "the last days" of OT prophecy and NT references to OT prophecy, and

(B) the meaning of "the last hour" referred to in 1 John.

Can you demonstrate that the meaning is the same in both cases?

If this passage (1 John 2:18) is not talking about the same "last hour" as say Daniel or the "end of the age" in the Olivette Discourse, then it may not even be an eschatological passage at all. (as some futurist have already argued in this thread).

If this is the case, then this verse is not a problem at all for preterist. Since you are asserting the position that this verse is a nightmare for preterist, the burden of proof is on you to show that this verse even applies to preterism.

I look forward to your response.

[philpott]

Faramir:

Thank you for your reply in which you actually dealt with the Scripture that I have been talking about. Out of 60 or so posts, you are the first to actually say something about the text, other than to allege that it does not mean what it says. While I disagree with most of your comments, now we can at least discuss the issue.

If you take verses 17-19 alone, out of context, preterism appears to be a possible valid interpretation of the text. However, that is the only way to make those verses apply to 70 AD exclusively. If we take a look at the flow of 1 John 2, we read:

12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

God, through John, is telling us about the nature of the world system and the relationship that a Christian is to have to it. We are not to love the world, nor its things. If we do, then we are not believers. Can this be restricted to people in the 70 AD period? That would be ludicrous.

Preterists maintain that verse 17 is referring to 70 AD. However, the Greek word for world in verse 17 is the same word used in verses 15 & 16. In verses 15-16, no one, except a hyper-preterist, would try to restrict those verses to 70 AD. The flow of the text is the end of time, not 70 AD.

One side note, I perceive that you have labeled me a futurist. I am not. If you will remember, in my syllogism, I said that 70 AD was the last time, just as today is the last time. The Lord clearly tells us on several occasions to be ready for His second coming at all times because we have no idea when that will be. In Matthew 24, He did tells us that “the end is not yet.” In other words, He told His people not to look for His coming yet. 70 AD had been prophesied in Daniel and had not yet arrived, so His people were not to look for Him yet. However, after 70 AD, we are to be ready at all times. Therefore, He used terminology that some have interpreted to infer that He would return soon, but does not mandate it. His terminology had to match His command to be ready at all times. He told us that He was not going to tell us when the second coming would happen – soon or far away. Just be ready. He would not use terminology telling us that His second coming would not be for 2 thousand or more years, and yet command believers prior to that to be ready at all times.

Back to 1 John 2:

Then, the following verses make absolutely no sense whatsoever, if they are restricted to 70 AD:

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The preterist cannot make sense of restricting these texts:
· Verse 20 – did the Christians prior to 70 AD receive an unction from God that Christians today do not receive?
· Verse 22 – After 70 AD was the man no longer antichrist who denied the Lord Jesus?
· Verse 23 – Was is only for 70 AD that those who deny the Son are without the Father?
· Verse 25 – Was there some special promise of eternal life for those prior to 70 AD?
· I could ask similar questions out of all of these verses. None apply to 70 AD exclusively. It would make no sense whatsoever.

Again, I decline to go off chasing preterist rabbit trails. We have a text here in 1 John 2:18 that totally contradicts preterism. This text needs to be explained in light of the system, which to date it has not been done. If we switch back to old reliable preterist texts that you (preterists) are comfortable with, then you will just fall back comfortably into your system and forget that there are many texts out there refuting your system.

Philpott

[John Reece]

philpot,

Re:


Preterists maintain that verse 17 is referring to 70 AD. However, the Greek word for world in verse 17 is the same word used in verses 15 & 16. In verses 15-16, no one, except a hyper-preterist, would try to restrict those verses to 70 AD. The flow of the text is the end of time, not 70 AD.

I am a preterist, and it has never occurred to me to restrict 1 John 2:18 to AD 70, and I have not seen any other preterist do that -- not to say none do, but I’ve read a lot by a lot of preterists, and I never read or heard of the notion you are refuting until you came on this site claiming to have the ultimate refutation of preterist belief.

Give actual quotes of preterists writing what you are refuting.

Or come out of the delusion that you are refuting preterists by refuting what preterists do not believe.

[philpott]

John Reece, wake up. What do you think we have all been discussing on this thread from the start. All of the preterists have been saying that 1 John 2:18 applies to 70 AD exclusively. The last days, as they see it.

Now, since you are a preterist and do not believe this text applies to 70 AD, how about helping me explain it to our preterist friends. They all disagree with you.

Philpott

[John Reece]

Today @ 05:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
philpott:

John Reece, wake up. What do you think we have all been discussing on this thread from the start. All of the preterists have been saying that 1 John 2:18 applies to 70 AD exclusively. The last days, as they see it.

Now, since you are a preterist and do not believe this text applies to 70 AD, how about helping me explain it to our preterist friends. They all disagree with you.

Philpott

Well, my apologies, Philpott. I guess I have been asleep, or am too old to grasp and remember what I have read (most likely! :smile: ).

I do see that C292 seems to affirm what you are challenging. Regarding the other preterists, it’s not clear to me that “All…have been saying that 1 John 2:18 applies to 70 AD exclusively" and that John’s “last hour” = the last days of OT prophecy and NT references to the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

If that is indeed the case, I am not going to try to change anyone’s belief. I’m just going to go back to eschewing labels and doctrinal positions.

I agree with Jaltus on this one.

[Faramir]

Today @ 12:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58045#post58045)
philpott:

John Reece, wake up. What do you think we have all been discussing on this thread from the start. All of the preterists have been saying that 1 John 2:18 applies to 70 AD exclusively. The last days, as they see it.

Now, since you are a preterist and do not believe this text applies to 70 AD, how about helping me explain it to our preterist friends. They all disagree with you.

Philpott

First of all I do not think that anyone said that 1 John 2:18 applied exclusively to AD 70. I know I did not.

That seems to be an assumption on your part.

At least one poster in this thread (Jaltus, who is not a preterist [yet]) has stated that this passage has nothing to do with eschatology. While I do not agree with Jaltus on everything, I have way to much respect for his knowledge of the Bible, especially the New Testament, to dismisses this statement without further research. So, I am considering the fact that 1 John 2:18 may have nothing to do with eschatology, much less preterism. However, for the sake of argument, I am taking the position that v. 18 does apply to eschatology(which I also consider a possibility), because I belive that even if this verse deals with eschatology it is not a problem for preterism.

I say this becasue you assume that you know exactly what every preterist on this thread believes. I just wanted you, John Reece, and everyone else know where I stand. And to reiterate that I think that JR makes a very valid point.

Now I will respond to your thread where you "answered" my early comments:


Faramir:

Thank you for your reply in which you actually dealt with the Scripture that I have been talking about. Out of 60 or so posts, you are the first to actually say something about the text, other than to allege that it does not mean what it says. While I disagree with most of your comments, now we can at least discuss the issue.

I think that this is what Dee Dee would call a yeah but answer. A preterist makes several points, the opponent says, yeah but….how about answering these other questions I have, but the opponent never actually addresses the points brought up by the preterist.

If you honestly want to “discuss” the issue, then please address the points I made earlier rather than simply dismissing them out of hand. You see I disagree with your position as well, but I have given reasons for my disagreements. This is usually the way a discussion works.

I find this discussion interesting so far, but for it to continue to be interesting it needs to continue to be a discussion. I will go ahead and address the new questions you raised. I ask that you show the same level of respect to me and others on this thread who have responded to the points you have made, by responding in kind to the points we have made. However, if this “discussion” continues to be one sided, that is the preterist answering your points without you (or any one else) addressing any of the preterist points, I will likely loose interest.


If you take verses 17-19 alone, out of context, preterism appears to be a possible valid interpretation of the text. However, that is the only way to make those verses apply to 70 AD exclusively. If we take a look at the flow of 1 John 2, we read:


12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

God, through John, is telling us about the nature of the world system and the relationship that a Christian is to have to it. We are not to love the world, nor its things. If we do, then we are not believers. Can this be restricted to people in the 70 AD period? That would be ludicrous.

Who ever said that this is restricted to AD 70? Not me, nor anyone else I know. You are right that it would be ludicrous to restrict those passages to AD 70, and I do not know of any preterist who does. Please explain why that would rule out v. 18 being a reference to AD70?

You talk about taking a passage in context OK lets look at the context of 1 John.

1 John was a letter written to a group of Christians (or several Groups of Christians) living in the first century. The original intent of the letter was that it was to be read by first century Christians. Of course some of the things that applied to first century Christians, do not apply to other Christians (or at least not in the same way. I believe that the Bible is inspired and every word has applications for Christians today. But, for example, the Old Testament messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus have a different application to us today than they did for the people who originally read them)

Here is an example of this from another New Testament Letter:


Philippians 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing;
15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,
16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.
17 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.
18 You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.
19 But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition.

Clearly all Christians should heed what God said through Paul about doing all things without grumbling or disputing. But does v. 19 apply to Christians today the same way that it applied to the Church of Philippi. Should all Christians be looking for Timothy to show up physically in our church. To borrow a term from you that would be ludicrous.

Just because one part of a passage is equally applicable to all Christians at all times that does not mean that all parts of a passage have the same applicability. Can you show why v. 18 must be applicable to all Christians in the same way that the proceeding verses are?


Preterists maintain that verse 17 is referring to 70 AD. However, the Greek word for world in verse 17 is the same word used in verses 15 & 16. In verses 15-16, no one, except a hyper-preterist, would try to restrict those verses to 70 AD. The flow of the text is the end of time, not 70 AD.

NO. I have never thought that v. 17 is referring to AD 70. As you said, “God, through John, is telling us about the nature of the world system and the relationship that a Christian is to have to it”. Verse 18 brings up the appearance of antichrist as an example of people who do love worldliness. This text is not about “end times” at all. John just brings up the end times in v.18 as it relates to the antichrist.

I agree with you that this passage is “about the nature of the world system and the relationship that a Christian is to have to it.” So “in context” v. 18 is the only verse that has any connection with the “end times”, and applying it to AD 70 would not be “out of context”. Applying the whole text to AD 70, which you accuse the preterist of doing, would be out of context. I am not aware of any preterist who does this. I certainly do not. In other words, this looks like a straw man to me.


One side note, I perceive that you have labeled me a futurist. I am not. If you will remember, in my syllogism, I said that 70 AD was the last time, just as today is the last time.

I am truly sorry if I misrepresented your position. I can assure you that it was unintentional. One of my biggest pet peeves is someone intentionally misrepresenting someone else’s position. I have heard futurist use this argument as well (that the end times began in the first century), and I assumed you were a futurist. I should have known that an historicist would also take this position and should not have assumed that you were a futurist. My sincere apologies.


The Lord clearly tells us on several occasions to be ready for His second coming at all times because we have no idea when that will be. In Matthew 24, He did tells us that “the end is not yet.” In other words, He told His people not to look for His coming yet. 70 AD had been prophesied in Daniel and had not yet arrived, so His people were not to look for Him yet. However, after 70 AD, we are to be ready at all times. Therefore, He used terminology that some have interpreted to infer that He would return soon, but does not mandate it. His terminology had to match His command to be ready at all times. He told us that He was not going to tell us when the second coming would happen – soon or far away. Just be ready. He would not use terminology telling us that His second coming would not be for 2 thousand or more years, and yet command believers prior to that to be ready at all times. emphasis added

:rofl: While it is true that Jesus said that he would not tell us the hour, there are dozen’s of text that indicate that He would return soon. And a clear reading of these texts does mandate a soon return of Christ. But this is beyond the scope of this particular thread, maybe we can take this up on a new thread in the future.


Back to 1 John 2:

Then, the following verses make absolutely no sense whatsoever, if they are restricted to 70 AD:

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The preterist cannot make sense of restricting these texts:
• Verse 20 – did the Christians prior to 70 AD receive an unction from God that Christians today do not receive?
• Verse 22 – After 70 AD was the man no longer antichrist who denied the Lord Jesus?
• Verse 23 – Was is only for 70 AD that those who deny the Son are without the Father?
• Verse 25 – Was there some special promise of eternal life for those prior to 70 AD?
• I could ask similar questions out of all of these verses. None apply to 70 AD exclusively. It would make no sense whatsoever.

As I stated earlier, I never said that these verses apply exclusively to AD 70, and I know of no other preterist who does. If you know of one who does, then you can argue the point with him or her. If not, then we can move on.


Again, I decline to go off chasing preterist rabbit trails. We have a text here in 1 John 2:18 that totally contradicts preterism. This text needs to be explained in light of the system, which to date it has not been done. If we switch back to old reliable preterist texts that you (preterists) are comfortable with, then you will just fall back comfortably into your system and forget that there are many texts out there refuting your system.

Another yeah but answer. The question was does 1 John 2:18’s use of the term “end time” mean the same thing as other “end of age” passages or not. If not, then the verse in question poses no problem at all related eschatology, much less, preterism. So how does that qualify as a “rabbit trail”? I myself am undecided on this issue but, have taken the position that v. 18 is eschatological in nature for the sake of argument (as I consider it at least possible that this verse is in fact talking about AD 70).

Of course I could easily assume the contrary position and argue that v. 18 has nothing to do with preterism. I still think that JR has a valid question.

[philpott]

First, I apologize to all of you preterists, especially John Reece. Obviously, I am wrong. Apparently I am imputing the debates that I had with the men in the Presbyterian Church that I used to attend into this discussion. I certainly did not realize that.

However, I am not wrong in that you restrict the time table of "last time" to 70 AD am I? If you do not, then you destroy your presupposition that the time texts (last time, near, etc) mandate a soon return of Christ. It seems like semantics to me, but whether you consider this eschatalogical or not, you still consider the term "last time" to refer to 70 AD.

I had time to read only a little of Faramir's essay before leaving for home. I am taking it home and will read it tonight.

Again, I see that you are exhorting me to expand the discussion as others have suggested. I really am not interested in debating something that has been beat to death 50 times before. I started this thread for two reasons:

1) I wanted to, hopefully, awaken some preterists to the false presuppositions to their system (regarding their use of time texts) which can readily be refuted from 1 John 2:18.

2) I wanted to get responses from preterists as to how they handle the text in light of their system. All of the men that I have challenged with this text face to face have given me that deer in the headlights look, with a quick reply of "it doesn't mean that."

Finally, I saw a comment in Faramir's paper, as well as in previous papers, saying that 1 John 2:18 may not be eschatalogical. However, verse 17, immediately preceding says, "and the world passeth away." That sure sounds eschatalogical to me.

[John Reece]

Thanks for the challenging comments, Philpott.

In the 1980s I spent considerable time seeking God for grace to be disabused of all presuppositions (those of my own as well as those of others), all the while re-reading the Greek NT repeatedly, asking God to enable me to understand what the scriptures actually say and mean.

That process resulted in my becoming, for lack of a better term, a preterist.

I have been retired for about a decade, during which time I have been enjoying living the life of a semi-hermit in a remote wooded wonderland, all the while forgetting most of what I had learned in a lifetime of exegetical studies.

Years ago I had written a few exegetical papers that had survived several computer upgrades and replacements, and when DSL became available locally, I bought a copy of Microsoft FrontPage and put up a web site consisting mostly of those old essays, and a few notes and memories of past studies. Dee Dee happened to find my web site and invited me to come to TWeb, and since then threads and posts here have been challenging me to re-think things I had not thought about for a long time.

This thread in particular had prompted me to set myself on another process of setting aside all preconceptions and presuppositions (in so far as that is possible by means of God’s grace), in a search for fresh understanding of what the scriptures actually say and mean.

Thanks again for the challenge of your comments, and the effect they have had in setting me on a fresh course of inquiry into the meaning of the scriptures.

Blessings,

John

[philpott]

Faramir:

I apologize that I insulted you by not responding to the points in your previous letter. I had grown very weary of the vanity of the discussion on this thread. I had hoped it would develop into a constructive dialogue, but it hasn’t. Therefore, I had decided to drop out. Suddenly, you actually made some comments regarding the text and I got a little excited. I jumped the gun and did not answer your comments, but tried to take the thread where I had hoped it might go from the start. So beat me with a cat of 9 tails – O that’s right, you already did.

I sat down tonight with the intention of specifically answering each of your points. However, I had to ask myself: Is anyone involved in this discussion open to hearing what I am trying to show them. Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no. Since I have rejected preterism, we seem to at the point of vain disputing. If I am wrong, please speak up. I will continue the discussion, if I am helping someone. However, I am not interested in an intellectual debate.

I am being criticized because I “think” I know what you preterists believe. It certainly would have helped if you preterists would have come out and clearly stated your position and understanding of the text. But you still won’t do so. Trying to grasp your position is like trying to catch smoke in your hand. After 65 posts, I do not have the faintest idea of what anyone in this group believes concerning 1 John 2:18.

For those of you who acted so dumbfounded that I assumed that you restrict 1 John 2:18 to 70 AD, I thought you might follow men like: James Stuart Russell, Gary DeMar and Ken Gentry. All three of these men restrict the verse to 70 AD. In fact, you must do so to hold the system together. If you allow this thread to break away, the entire system will unravel. That has been my point from the beginning. And strangely, most of you admit to the absurdity of restricting this text.

You wrote, “yeah but answer” and “another yeah but answer.” I hope you can envision my laughter – that comment coming from people I have been communicating with for close to a month and have no idea of what they believe concerning the one verse of Scripture I have been trying to discuss with them.

As I said in my previous post, I had two objectives in mind with this thread. Hopefully, I have made someone think about the false system of preterism by showing that 1 John 2:18 reveals the false presuppositions relating to the time texts. I was a victim to its deceptiveness at one point. I hope that each of you will also be rescued from its clutches soon. Dee Dee has my email address and you can contact me at any time if I can be of any assistance. My second goal has not been met, except to see that preterists truly have no answer in reconciling the clear statement of 1 John 2:18 to their system.

I thank each of you for your time and courtesy.

Philpott

[CT292]

Philpott wrote:


As I said in my previous post, I had two objectives in mind with this thread. Hopefully, I have made someone think about the false system of preterism by showing that 1 John 2:18 reveals the false presuppositions relating to the time texts. I was a victim to its deceptiveness at one point. I hope that each of you will also be rescued from its clutches soon. Dee Dee has my email address and you can contact me at any time if I can be of any assistance. My second goal has not been met, except to see that preterists truly have no answer in reconciling the clear statement of 1 John 2:18 to their system.

Phil,

As an orthodox preterist, I have answered your challenge about 1 John 2:18 in previous posts on this thread. Yet you continue to falsely claim that that "preterists have no answer" to it.

Your challenge to Preterists are as naive as the Arminians who falsely claim that Calvinists have no answer to John 3:16 or to I John 2:2.

I John 2:18 is simply not a verse that brings any major challenge to Orthodox preterists except in your own pre-conceptions of what preterists believe. But what cannot be denied is that John spoke of a contemporary issue regarding antichrist. Contemporary to his time and place.

Yet these contemporary antichrists fulfilled in John's day, does not rule out future types of antichrist in our day or in our future. There have always been false messiahs and false christs throughout history and even now. But none of these "types" are the antichrists specifically referred to by the Apostle John.

And OP does not demand that every prophetic text be taken as fulfilled in AD 70. That is what makes them orthodox and not heretical like the Full Preterists are. Thus, even if one were to interpret 1 John 2:18 historicistically, that is prophetic fulfillment ongoing through history, it would not be damaging to the preterist system when employed elsewhere in the Bible (such as Matt 24:1-34 and Rev 1-20).

Orthodox preterism does not stand or fall on 1 John 2:18 and it is naive to think that it does.

Colin

[John Reece]

Colin,

Well said.

One thing I don't understand:


Yet these contemporary antichrists fulfilled in John's day, does not rule out future types of antichrist in our day or in our future. There have always been false messiahs and false christs throughout history and even now. But none of these "types" are the antichrists specifically referred to by the Apostle John.

What do you mean by types of antichrists?

What's the difference (in terms of "type") between the "antichrists' defined in 1 John and those in subsequent centuries, including the 21st?

:huh:

[CT292]

John Reece asks:

What do you mean by types of antichrists?

What's the difference (in terms of "type") between the "antichrists' defined in 1 John and those in subsequent centuries, including the 21st?

By "Types" I mean copycat imitators. King David and Moses were "types" of the future Messiah, Jesus Christ, the ultimate antitype.

The antichrists in John's day were real antichrists that he warned his 1st century readers about. But they can and have been copied throughout history, not as a prophetic fulfillment, but on an ethical basis. Thus, the Popes of Rome have been (and are) types of antichrists because ethically and soteriologically, they oppose Christ and his gospel as much as the original antichrists did in John's day.

As I said in a previous post, modern antichrists of today are mere "copy cats" of the original ones. The analogy of a "copy cat killer" illustrates this.

Colin

[Faramir]

Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59253#post59253)
philpott:

Faramir:

I apologize that I insulted you by not responding to the points in your previous letter. I had grown very weary of the vanity of the discussion on this thread. I had hoped it would develop into a constructive dialogue, but it hasn’t. Therefore, I had decided to drop out. Suddenly, you actually made some comments regarding the text and I got a little excited. I jumped the gun and did not answer your comments, but tried to take the thread where I had hoped it might go from the start. So beat me with a cat of 9 tails – O that’s right, you already did.

I was not so much insulted as frustrated. I have been in several debates where this is the typical tactic of avoiding the issues. Like you, it seems that I have taken my past experiences out on you, I should have given you the bennifit of the doubt. I apologize if I came accross in an acusatory manner.


Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59253#post59253)
philpott:

I sat down tonight with the intention of specifically answering each of your points. However, I had to ask myself: Is anyone involved in this discussion open to hearing what I am trying to show them. Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no. Since I have rejected preterism, we seem to at the point of vain disputing. If I am wrong, please speak up. I will continue the discussion, if I am helping someone. However, I am not interested in an intellectual debate.

If by "open to hearing" what you are trying to say you mean that I will consider your position, then yes I am open to what you have to say. If you by "open to hearing" you mean that I think that is likely that you will be able to change my position, then I would say no. (Not likely but not impossible).

I feel that I have shown why 1 John 2:18 is not a "nightmare" for orthodox preterism. In order for me to remain "opin to hearing" what you have to say, you would have to show why I am wrong. I would then either, try to refute that position (likely) or agree with your position (unlikely).


Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59253#post59253)
philpott:
I am being criticized because I “think” I know what you preterists believe. It certainly would have helped if you preterists would have come out and clearly stated your position and understanding of the text. But you still won’t do so. Trying to grasp your position is like trying to catch smoke in your hand. After 65 posts, I do not have the faintest idea of what anyone in this group believes concerning 1 John 2:18.

One reason for this is that as far as I know, no preterist considers this verse a "foundational" (for lack of a better term) verse. So there are many different interpretations among preterist.

I for one have been a preterist for a little more than a year, and have not had the time to do a detailed study of every potential eschatological verse from the preterist perspective. Your post was the first time I have had a reason to study this one particular verse in any great detail, so please understand if I do not have a firm position on this one verse yet.

And if my response to you seemed to be criticizing, that was not my intent. I was mearly trying to correct what I perceived to be a misunderstanding. I only intentionally criticize when a person has been corrected and contiues to misrepresent their opponents.


Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59253#post59253)
philpott:
For those of you who acted so dumbfounded that I assumed that you restrict 1 John 2:18 to 70 AD, I thought you might follow men like: James Stuart Russell, Gary DeMar and Ken Gentry. All three of these men restrict the verse to 70 AD. In fact, you must do so to hold the system together. If you allow this thread to break away, the entire system will unravel. That has been my point from the beginning. And strangely, most of you admit to the absurdity of restricting this text.

I have read books by DeMar and Gentry and have read several quotes from Russell. I do not recall any one of the "restricting" this passage to AD 70. In the course of this discussion, I have noticed that Gentry says that this one verse "applies" to AD 70, but that is not the same thing as "restricting" the entire passage to AD 70.

If you could provide some quotes where these writers "restricted" the verse to AD 70 it would make it easier for to understand your position.


Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59253#post59253)
philpott:
You wrote, “yeah but answer” and “another yeah but answer.” I hope you can envision my laughter – that comment coming from people I have been communicating with for close to a month and have no idea of what they believe concerning the one verse of Scripture I have been trying to discuss with them.

I for one have not developed a firm position on this particular verse, but have for the sake of argument taken the position that it (that one verse) does apply to AD 70 as it is one of the positions on that verse that I am considering. As soon as I realized that there may be some confusion, I tried as best I could to clarify my position.

I also think that other people have been clear as well. Of course there are many different interpretaions within preterism, and seval non-preterist chimed in as well.


Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59253#post59253)
philpott:

As I said in my previous post, I had two objectives in mind with this thread. Hopefully, I have made someone think about the false system of preterism by showing that 1 John 2:18 reveals the false presuppositions relating to the time texts. I was a victim to its deceptiveness at one point. I hope that each of you will also be rescued from its clutches soon. Dee Dee has my email address and you can contact me at any time if I can be of any assistance. My second goal has not been met, except to see that preterists truly have no answer in reconciling the clear statement of 1 John 2:18 to their system.

Well you certainly made me think about 1 John 2:18 as it relates to preterism. However, I will admit that I still do not see how this verse "destroys" preterism. I have also shown in considerable detail why I do not think that this verse destroys preterism.

I would really like to see your response to my earlier reasons why this verse does not "destroy" preterism. However, if you choose not to respond, for whatever reason, that is your choice. I have really enjoyed the discussion so far.

It appears from the tone of your last paragraph, that you might not be planning on coming back. I hope that I have read that wrong, as I have truely enjoyed this exchange. Even though we do not agree on this issue.

If this is goodbye then best wishes, and thanks for your challenging posts.


I thank each of you for your time and courtesy.

Philpott [/QUOTE]

[John Reece]

Colin,

Here is all John said in terms of defining and identifying “the antichrist”:

1 John 2
22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son (ESV)

1 John 4
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (ESV)

2 John 1
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (ESV)

In terms of the only scriptures that refer to “the antichrist”, what Pope ever matched John’s definition/description?

[CT292]

John wrote:


Here is all John said in terms of defining and identifying “the antichrist”:

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son (ESV)

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (ESV)

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (ESV)

In terms of the only scriptures that refer to “the antichrist”, what Pope ever matched John’s definition/description?


The Reformers and puritans and presbyterians upto the 19th century all taught that the Pope was "that antichrist" and "man of sin". What is interesting is that the original Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXV:6 which teaches that the "Pope is that antichrist", does not cite any proof texts from the First or the Second Epistles of John. Rather, the WCF cites Rev. 13:6 and 2 Thess 2. Of course, all American presbyterians now hold to a revised WCF which has since deleted all the references to the Pope being the antichrist.

As a former Historicist turned preterist, naturally I reject the eschatological method used in the original WCF at that point. When the reformers attempted to justify their view of the Papal antichrist, they would link him to the Beast of Revelation and to the Man of Sin in 2 Thess 2. They would also cite 1 John 4:3 saying that the Pope was the spirit of antichrist. And in their eschatological method, they would say that this "spirit" of antichrist lives on prophetically throughout history. Hence, the historicist view.

Thus, to answer your question, I would borrow the argument from the Reformers in saying that the Papacy (all popes thru history) have a similar "spirit" of antichrist due to the Roman papacy's opposition to the gospel and therefore, to Christ. The Popes are a "deceiver and antichrist" by their very office.

The Presbyterian theologian, Patrick Fairbairn addresses your very question in his Appendix to his classic book (http://www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/ARTICLES/Antichrist/Is%20the%20Papacy%20the%20Antichrist.pdf), The Interpretation of Prophecy.

Though as a preterist, I distinguish between prophetic "types" and a non-prophetical "types". Fairbairns argues for the former, whereas I argue for the latter.

Colin

[John Reece]

Colin,

I did not get past the Acrobat Reader hurdle, so I was not able to read Fairbairn’s essay, which would be of interest to me.

It seems to be almost universally accepted among scholars (I think particularly of F. F. Bruce’s essay on the subject) that “The Man of Sin/Lawlessness” and “The Beast” in Revelation are “The Antichrist”.

After decades of reading the texts in context, I can’t see how “The Antichrist” amounts to anything other than man-made myth – as distinct from divinely inspired prophetic revelation.

John’s is the only biblical reference to “the antichrist”, which contains the only explicit definition of “the antichrist”.

To conflate The Man of Sin, The Beast, and John’s definition of (the) antichrist(s) seems to me to allow mythology, tradition, and human presuppositions to override sound exegesis.

This is not unimportant, because fascination with speculation about a manifestation of “The Antichrist” our future serves only to prevent people from putting the focus where the scripture puts it: in the progressive manifestation of the Kingdom of God in the world by means of a progressive manifestation of Christ in his Body in the world, in time, and in history. Any future consummation will be a consummation of what is already working as a teleological process, not some radical eschatological abortion of the present process and an inauguration of a reign of Christ in an individual human body.

Isaiah 55

6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
7 let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (ESV)

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Christians should spend less time speculating about the meaning of obscure texts that were fulfilled circa AD 70, and more time focusing on the teleology of John 14-17, 1 Corinthians 12-15, and Ephesians 1-4.

'Got carried away there :smile: .

Blessings,

John

[philpott]

Colin:

Thanks for the comments. Give me a couple of days to think about whether I want to continue. My printer is broken and I hope to have it back within a couple of days. I want to reprint the entire thread and re-read it. I certainly do not remember all of the posts whereby so many have said that they answered my question. I do remember many places where someone said that my premise is wrong and then they took off on their own crusade.

Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days or last time and yet that event can occur in another time period (i.e. not the last days), I am not interested in jumping off to other topics. Maybe I missed it. Anyway, give me a couple of days.

Have a nice day,
Philpott

[John Reece]

Philpott,

Re:


Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days...

If you could just comprehend the fact that the text does not say what you have written, perhaps you could come unstuck from your obsession.

You will never get a satisfactory answer to a question that is based on a premise that is false: that is, that the text of 1 John 2:18 "says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days" - some people may assume that that is what the text means, but the text does not say that, nor does it mean that.

[John Reece]

Philpott,

Even if we were to stipulate that 1 John 2:18 means what it does not say – that is, that John’s “last time” = Peter’s “last days” (Acts 2:17) – I don’t see that that poses any problem for preterists.

Perhaps it would help if you were to comprehend the fact that there was an overlap of two ages from circa AD 30 to circa AD 70, and that what was characteristic of the new age was coterminous with what was characteristic of the old age during that approximately 40 year time frame.

It sound to me like the church to which you referred (in a prior post) may subscribe to the cessationist error: that is, that the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit were characteristic of “the last days”, which came to an end circa AD 70. The error consists in a failure to comprehend the fact that nothing that was characteristic of the new age was aborted with the ending of the old age.

In the same way, the presence of "antichrists" being a sign of John's being in "the last hour/time" bears no implication that the presence of "antichrists" then is any different for the presence of antichrists now, and indeed throughout history since their advent in the first century.

If I am being unclear, perhaps Faramir can come back in with his knack for clarifying what is confused :smile: .

Blessings,

John

[philpott]

John Reece:

Once again you spend all of this time telling me how stupid I am and how stupid my premise is and you still do not answer my question. If it is so stupid, how hard can it be to explain to me how the presence of many antichrists tells us "whereby" we know we are in the last days according to 1 John 2:18.

I love it when I just quote a Scripture and you keep coming back saying that it does not say that. All I am doing is quoting a Scripture.

No one has done the syllogism showing an example of how your premise can possibly be plausible.

Philpott

[Faramir]

John Reece said:


Today @ 08:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60255#post60255)
John Reece:

Philpott,

Re:


Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days...

If you could just comprehend the fact that the text does not say what you have written, perhaps you could come unstuck from your obsession.

You will never get a satisfactory answer to a question that is based on a premise that is false: that is, that the text of 1 John 2:18 &quot;says that the existence of many antichrists is &quot;whereby&quot; we know we are in the last days&quot; - some people may assume that that is what the text means, but the text does not say that, nor does it mean that.





Today @ 09:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60284#post60284)
John Reece:

Philpott,

Even if we were to stipulate that 1 John 2:18 means what it does not say – that is, that John’s “last time” = Peter’s “last days” (Acts 2:17) – I don’t see that that poses any problem for preterists.

Perhaps it would help if you were to comprehend the fact that there was an overlap of two ages from circa AD 30 to circa AD 70, and that what was characteristic of the new age was coterminous with what was characteristic of the old age during that approximately 40 year time frame.

It sound to me like the church to which you referred (in a prior post) may subscribe to the cessationist error: that is, that the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit were characteristic of “the last days”, which came to an end circa AD 70. The error consists in a failure to comprehend the fact that nothing that was characteristic of the new age was aborted with the ending of the old age.

In the same way, the presence of &quot;antichrists&quot; being a sign of John's being in &quot;the last hour/time&quot; bears no implication that the presence of &quot;antichrists&quot; then is any different for the presence of antichrists now, and indeed throughout history since their advent in the first century.

If I am being unclear, perhaps Faramir can come back in with his knack for clarifying what is confused :smile: .

Blessings,

John


To which philpott replied:


Today @ 12:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60412#post60412)
philpott:

John Reece:

Once again you spend all of this time telling me how stupid I am and how stupid my premise is and you still do not answer my question. If it is so stupid, how hard can it be to explain to me how the presence of many antichrists tells us &quot;whereby&quot; we know we are in the last days according to 1 John 2:18.

I love it when I just quote a Scripture and you keep coming back saying that it does not say that. All I am doing is quoting a Scripture.

No one has done the syllogism showing an example of how your premise can possibly be plausible.

Philpott

First Philpott, I do not see anywhere where John Reece was telling you "how stupid" you were. Nor are any of my comments in this post intended to be taken in any way other than as a friendly disagreement between two fellow believers.

Second let me address some of your coments. You stated:


Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days...

I agree with what John Reece said here:


You will never get a satisfactory answer to a question that is based on a premise that is false: that is, that the text of 1 John 2:18 &quot;says that the existence of many antichrists is &quot;whereby&quot; we know we are in the last days&quot; - some people may assume that that is what the text means, but the text does not say that, nor does it mean that.

What you are doing here is what is commonly called a straw man. That is claiming that your opponents position is different from what it actually is. No preterist that I know of would ever say that the "existence" of many antichirst is whereby we know we are in the last days. I do not think that this is an intentional misrepresentation, but it is one nonetheless.

This may be what you believe that the text is saying, but to ask a preterist to explain why the "existence" of many antichrist today does not negate the preteris position is like asking an atheis why the existence of God refutes evolution. No atheist ever claimed that and no preterist that I know of ever claimed that the mere "presence" of antichrist would always be a sign of the "last time"

And I have given reasons why it is the "appearace" of many antichrist and not the "existence" of many atnichrist that is the indicator of the "last time". I even provided a syllogism:


1. The text indicates that it is the last times; present tense as of the time of the writing. (For me this is sufficient, but I will go on for the sake of argument)

2. The text indicates that the audience "[had] heard that antichrists shall come; this indicates that there was a time in the recent past (from the writing of this letter) when there were no antichrists, but that antichrists had been prophesized.

3. The text indicates that there were, at the time of the writing antichrist; implying that it is the first appearance of antichrist that was a sign of the last times.

For the full context see here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=52958#post52958)

And while these answers may not be "satisfactory" to you, they are quite satisfactory to me. If you want to show why you find my answers unsatisfactory, fine. In fact I wish you would. I would actually like to see your reasons.

If you choose not to show why you think that my answers are unsatisfactory, that is your choice. However, I will not feel the least bit compelled to offer you any new answers until you have addressed the answers that I have already provided. Fair enough?

I look forward to your response.

[philpott]

Faramir:

I got my printer back and I will print the thread and read it, probably tomorrow night since we have church tonight.

In scanning your post, I did notice your comments about building a straw man. I really do not think that I am doing that. I am quite familiar with the concept. I fully recognize that preterists do not hold to the position that I am pushing. However, all I am doing is reading a text from the Bible and saying I believe it means what it says. The preterists are screaming bloody murder because I will not relent in alleging that the text means what it says. That is not building a straw man.

I will get back to you on your last two posts after I have time to study them.

Philpott

[philpott]

To all of you guys, particularly Faramir and John Reece and Colin:

I apologize that I have been so critical in getting no responses to my challenge. While I do not believe that you have refuted my premise, you have tried. I have been frustrated that sometimes I think that no one truly understand my point. Last night, I printed threads 5 & 6 and read them. There was much material there that I had missed – I didn’t realize how much I missed the printer. I hate reading a long, detailed post on the computer screen. So, even if I do decide to step out soon, there are definitely some points there that I need to respond to – and I will try. Just give me a little time. Unfortunately my schedule is pretty full. So, replying is sometimes a little difficult. Hopefully, by the end of the weekend, I will be caught up.

Second, yesterday at lunch I thought I would quickly check the thread to see if there were any posts. John Reece had made two posts. In one, you made the comments, “if you could just comprehend the fact…” and “you will never get a satisfactory answer to a question that is based on a premise that is false…” I do not know why those two comments struck me so negatively, because in reading them tonight, they certainly do not seem so inflammatory as they did at lunch. I can only attribute my disposition to the terrible day that I was having at work. All of our upper management was in an uproar and I had just gotten off of an hour long conversation with our Chief Financial Officer. Sorry that I over reacted.

Faramir – sorry I called you Colin.

Solly – thanks for the post. I appreciate the job that you did in trying to help me out. Again, I did not see this post until tonight.

John Reece and Faramir – I thank both of you for sharing some of your personal histories. I found both of them very interesting.

I am going to try to make a few comments regarding some of the posts, but I do not have time tonight to get into the detailed answers that will take some study.

One thing that will help me is for John Reece to tell me what you believe the verse means. You repeatedly say it does not mean what I am saying. It might prevent many more futile responses from both sides.

Second, John Reece asked me about NT and OT references using “the last days.” Could you specify a couple of texts that you are thinking about? Again, I don’t have time to write a book, but I will try to answer a couple.

Several of you have expressed dissatisfaction at my usage of the term “defined” as I have used it in relation to 1 John 2:18 defining the occurrence of the last days. You want to use the term that the existence of antichrists was a “sign” of the last days. Again, I am merely going from the text. 1 John 2:18 says, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” This is not my opinion. I am merely stating what the text says – the existence of many antichrists tells us when the last days are occurring.

Faramir – I apologize. I did not realize that the 1, 2, 3 of that post was a syllogism. However, in my opinion, your syllogism did not prove the point. As I have stated from my position, I agree with your points 1 and 2, but that certainly does not mandate that point 3 is true. Step 3 is not a logical conclusion mandated by points 1 & 2. Instead, it is an inference that might be drawn, and in my opinion, quite strained. As I have said before, and I think your syllogism confirms my premise, 70 AD was included in the last days and as is today. We know this because there were many antichrists in both periods.

Again, much dissatisfaction has been expressed over my comments about 1 John 2:18 being “restricted” to 70 AD. Some of you have agree that it refers to 70 AD but do not want to “restrict” it to 70 AD. What is the difference? It the text is talking about 70 AD, then that is the period that the truth is restricted to, it seems to me. Please help me to understand the difference from your perspective.

It appears to me that as preterists, you must restrict the verse to 70 AD because it uses the term “last time.” If you do not, then here is a NT reference that preterists claim infers a near fulfillment, that did not apply to 70 AD. Instead it applies to the second coming. If this verse implies a near fulfillment (according to preterists) and actually will be fulfilled at the second coming, then why not all of the other verses that preterists say teaches a soon coming of Christ. Like I said, the whole system comes unraveled if you give this one verse away.

I still would like to see a syllogism expressing how an event can identify or define a period of time and that event occur in other time periods. I do not believe you can do it because it is a pure contradiction.

Well, it is almost midnight, so I guess I had better get to bed. I will try to continue this tomorrow night.

Finally for tonight, I have received many accusations of obsessions, using false premises, etc. What you are calling an obsession is that I believe the text means what it says. Thus far, no one has proven that the text does not mean what it clearly says. As for using a false premise, I hear you in that you claim that you do not believe that 1 John 2:18 applies to 70 AD. I am saying that the term in the text “last time” must be applied (i.e. restricted) to 70 AD by preterists in order to hold their system together. We all know that this does not work and is out of context, as most of you have agreed. However, the time text presuppositions used by preterists will be refuted if you do not apply this text to 70 AD. Either way the preterist looses. If he applies the text to 70 AD, then he has a clear contradiction in the flow of the text. If he doesn’t, then his use of time texts to prove his point are shot down.

Once again, I will say it: THE TEXT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

O yes, two questions. I see people use the term IMHO frequently. What does it mean? Second, how do you copy the other person’s posts in the shaded boxes as most of you do?

I hope you guys have a good day tomorrow.

Philpott

[Faramir]

Yesterday @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60578#post60578)
philpott:

Faramir:

I got my printer back and I will print the thread and read it, probably tomorrow night since we have church tonight.

In scanning your post, I did notice your comments about building a straw man. I really do not think that I am doing that. I am quite familiar with the concept. I fully recognize that preterists do not hold to the position that I am pushing. However, all I am doing is reading a text from the Bible and saying I believe it means what it says. The preterists are screaming bloody murder because I will not relent in alleging that the text means what it says. That is not building a straw man.

I will get back to you on your last two posts after I have time to study them.

Philpott

Well, preterist believe the text means what it says as well, the problem comes because both sides disagree on what that verse is saying.

When you phrase a question like:


Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days or last time and yet that event can occur in another time period (i.e. not the last days), I am not interested in jumping off to other topics.

It appears to me that you are trying to get preterist to agree that the text actually means that it is the existence of antichrist that is the sign of the last hour, when no preterist that I know of would say that. If that is the case then you are asking prerist to defend their view based on your interpritaion of the verse in question. If that is the case then it is a strawman. If that is not the case, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Like I said earlier, I never thought it was an intentional strawman.

With that said, maybe if you rephrased the question, we can have more productive conversation. I will give an example of what I think the question you are trying to ask would be. (Please correct me if I am wrong. ):


How can a preterist deny that 1 John 1:18 says that the existence of many antichrist is the sign whereby we will know that we are in the end times.

Do you see the difference?

The blue question appears to be asking the preterist to explain how his/her position is possible based on your interpritaion of that verse. The answer is that it is not possible based on your interpritaion, and you're either presenting a strawman, and/or begging the question.

The red question requires that the preterist defend his/her actual position.

I said all that to address this statement you made.

Yesterday @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60578#post60578)
philpott:The preterists are screaming bloody murder because I will not relent in alleging that the text means what it says.

What the preterist (at least me, and I believ John Reece as well) are (to use your term) "screaming bloody murder" about is not you "not relent in alleging that the the text means what it says. What I (we) are screaming bloddy murder about is my (our?) perception that you are not relenting on insisting that the preterist aply your interpritation to the text and make it compatalbe with preterism. That can not be done.

If the text really does say that the existence of many antichrist is an indication of the last hour, and that many antichrist can only exist in the last hour, then 1 John 2:18 is very problematic with preterism if there are in fact many antichrist in existence today.

And I do believe that the text means what it says. I just don't believe that it says the same thing that you think it says. I think that it is the appearance of many antichrist that is the sign of the last hour. Furthermore, I have given reasons why I think so.


1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. [i]NASB, emphasis added

I look forward to your response.

P.S. Congrats on getting your printer back. :thumb:

[John Reece]

Philpott,

In response to your most recent questions:

You wrote:


One thing that will help me is for John Reece to tell me what you believe the verse means. You repeatedly say it does not mean what I am saying. It might prevent many more futile responses from both sides.

The verse means what it says:

1 John 2

Warning Concerning Antichrists

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. (ESV – wherein the more literal rendering of the Greek text is “the last hour” in place of “the last time”. For the purposes of this discussion we can stipulate that those English renderings are synonymous, and will thus continue using the phrase “the last time” in what follows).

Here is what you wrote:


Until I get a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days or last time and yet that event can occur in another time period (i.e. not the last days), I am not interested in jumping off to other topics.

No one can give you a satisfactory answer as to how 1 John 2:18 says what you say it says, because it does not say what you say it says.

1 John 2:18 does not say “that the existence of many antichrists is "whereby" we know we are in the last days…” Read the text of the scripture. The words you have written are not in the verse, and the verse means what it says, not what you say it says.

You are equating the phrase “the last time” with the phrase “the last days”.They are not the same. One occurs in the text. The other does not occur in the text. If you expect anyone to be convinced that the single verse of 1 John 2:18 nullifies the entire preterist perspective, you are going to have to do so solely on the basis of what the text actually says, without inserting into the text things that are not there.

You wrote:


John Reece asked me about NT and OT references using “the last days.” Could you specify a couple of texts that you are thinking about?

Acts 2

17 And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams; (ESV)

Acts 2:17 is a quote of Joel 3:1, according to what Peter said in the preceding verse:

Acts 2

16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: (ESV)

Hebrews 1

2…in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

A cross-reference to Hebrews 1:2 in the margin of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is Psalm 2:8. According to what Jesus said as recorded in Matthew 26:64, Psalm 2 was fulfilled at the time of His Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension.

Matthew 26

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

According to the cross-references in the margin of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Jesus was referring to Psalm 2 and Daniel 7, in effect declaring that he was the fulfillment of those prophecies, effective in the immediate future as of the time he made that declaration.

You wrote:


It appears to me that as preterists, you must restrict the verse to 70 AD because it uses the term “last time.”

Not so. The use of the term “last time” does not necessitate a restriction of the verse to 70 AD, because the term “the last time” occurs no where else in the Bible, so there is no warrant outside the verse necessitating such a restriction to 70 AD. And there is nothing inside the verse necessitating such a restriction. In order for you to prove the point you are trying to make, you must prove that the phrases “the last time” and “the last days” are synonyms referring to the same thing. Can you prove that, rather than just assert that?

You wrote:


If this verse implies a near fulfillment (according to preterists) and actually will be fulfilled at the second coming, then why not all of the other verses that preterists say teaches a soon coming of Christ.

The verse does not refer to a near fulfillment, or to a far fulfillment, or to the second coming of Christ. It simple states a fact that was actually present at the time the writer wrote the text:

1 John 2

Warning Concerning Antichrists

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

Not a prediction of the future, near or far: rather, it is a statement regarding the reality present as of the time the verse was written.

[philpott]

Faramir:
"It appears to me that you are trying to get preterist to agree that the text actually means that it is the existence of antichrist that is the sign of the last hour, when no preterist that I know of would say that. If that is the case then you are asking prerist to defend their view based on your interpritaion of the verse in question. If that is the case then it is a strawman. If that is not the case, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Like I said earlier, I never thought it was an intentional strawman."

No, I am not trying to get preterists to agree to what they do not believe. I am arguing that according to the clear words and meaning of the text, that preterists are being inconsistent with the text with their application of the passage. I am further arguing that my premise is not incorrect or false just because preterists do not agree with it.

Next, I liked your question, so let's pose it:

"How can a preterist deny that 1 John 1:18 says that the existence of many antichrist is the sign whereby we will know that we are in the end times. ”

I like the question, but I am not sure what the difference is between that question and my request that preterists explain to me what they understand 1 John 2:18 to mean.

Faramir:
"What the preterist (at least me, and I believ John Reece as well) are (to use your term) "screaming bloody murder" about is not you "not relent[ing] in alleging that the the text means what it says. What I (we) are screaming bloddy murder about is my (our?) perception that you are not relenting on insisting that the preterist aply your interpritation to the text and make it compatalbe with preterism. That can not be done."

What interpretation? All I said is the text means what it clearly states. One thing I am pretty sure of now is that even though my syllogism may not have been the world's best, the preterists now see the point. They also know what the text clearly states. So, yes, I keep insisting that the text means what it says.

Faramir:
"If the text really does say that the existence of many antichrist is an indication of the last hour, and that many antichrist can only exist in the last hour, then 1 John 2:18 is very problematic with preterism if there are in fact many antichrist in existence today."

We know that there are many antichrists today. From the Scripture verses quoted by John Reece stating the characteristics of antichrist, we know that many people today fit that description. I plant to touch on this more in my upcoming response to Colin's post regarding types of antichrist.

Faramir:
"And I do believe that the text means what it says. I just don't believe that it says the same thing that you think it says. I think that it is the appearance of many antichrist that is the sign of the last hour. Furthermore, I have given reasons why I think so."

I have responded to your points of the syllogism in the post prior to this one.

Have a nice evening,
Philpott

[Faramir]

I have responded to your points of the syllogism in the post prior to this one.

Have a nice evening,
Philpott

Sorry Philpott our post must have crossed in cyberspace. I did not see this until much later. I will try to respond tomorrow when I have more time.

[philpott]

John Reece and others:

First, my usage of the term “last days” in reference to 1 John 2:18 was unintentional. Although, I really don’t have a problem with it because both terms are referring to the same time period.

I only have one word for your (John) last post. Amazing.

I cannot believe that a preterist is telling me that the phrase “last hour” does not apply to 70 AD. I thought that the obvious meaning of the terms was supposed to be one of the soundest proofs that preterism is true. Let’s see – last days applies to 70 AD, but last hour doesn’t.

Next you tell me that when God said “it is the last hour, and as you have heard antichrist is coming…” that He was not referring to some specific period of eschatalogical fulfillment, but rather just another day. You wrote, “Not a prediction of the future, near or far: rather, it is a statement regarding the reality present as of the time the verse was written.” If you can live with that type of twisting, so be it.

Once again, gentlemen, I have come to realize the futility of this conversation. While in one sense, it is fun to watch the gymnastics people go through to defend a false system. However, the Lord commands us to abstain from vain disputations.

Again, I extend the offer that if I can be of any assistance, please email me. Dee Dee can give you the address.

One more time: THE TEXT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS - and that constitutes a mortal wound to preterism.

Thanks again for the communications.

Philpott

[John Reece]

:cheers:

[Faramir]

Hi Philpott, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, been a little busier than I thought I would be.

Let me back track for a bit and look at your syllogism:




1st syllogism:

1 John 2:18 tells us that we can define the period called “the last time” by the existence of many antichrists.

At 70 AD, there were many antichrists. Therefore, according to 1 John 2:18, is was the last time.

Today, there are many antichrists. Therefore, according to 1 John 2:18, we are still in the last time.

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. (NASB emphasis added)

In the first premise you say that the text "defines" the "last hour". A preterist would say that the text give a "sign" of the last hour. Also, it does not say "existence" but it talks about an appearance (it even used the word appeared in the NASB). So a preterist migh say that the text indicates that the "appearance" of many antichirst is a "sign" of the last hour.

I agree with your second premise.

Your conclusion is based on the first premise, which begs the question by the terms "defined" and "existence" which are not in the text, and would not be used in a preterist interpritation of the text.


2nd syllogism:


Preterists allege that the period of 70 AD was the exclusively the “last time.”

1 John 2:18 tells us that the “last time” can be identified by the existence of “many antichrists.”

There are many antichrists today.

Therefore, 70 AD cannot be the exclusive period included in the “last time.”

First premise is an over simplification. Preterist say that nearly all of Bible prophecy was fullfilled in AD. And yes, a lot of preterist "proof text" have phrases similar to "last time". The phrase "last time" could be used in a non-escatological text and have nothing to do with AD 70.

I will give you an example of how this is possible, using the text in question. I do not agree with this interpretaion (I just now made it up to use it as an expample), but I use it to show you what I mean:

The Greek word translated "last" in 1 Jn. 2:18, can be translated as worst as well as last. This was a time of much persecution and the apearance of many antichrist. Surely these are the "worst" times, and they are still with us.

This is the only time in the NT when the "last hour" is used (that is the two Greek words translated as "last hour") so this phrase may not be referring to AD 70.

See, not AD 70, no conflict with prterism.

Now for the sake of argument (and the more I study this the more I am persuaded that it is true). I will concede that 1 Jn. 2:18 does deal with preterism.

Second premise is the same as your first premise in syllogism 1 see above.

Third primise I agree with.

Conclusion is again based on a premise that begs the question, and an oversimplification of the preterist position.


Now on to some of your later remarks.



04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

Several of you have expressed dissatisfaction at my usage of the term “defined” as I have used it in relation to 1 John 2:18 defining the occurrence of the last days. You want to use the term that the existence of antichrists was a “sign” of the last days. Again, I am merely going from the text. 1 John 2:18 says, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” This is not my opinion. I am merely stating what the text says – the existence of many antichrists tells us when the last days are occurring.

I disagree here, I think that either sign or defined can be implied in the text, (I think sign is much clearer as the disciples asked Jesus for signs and he gave them a similar answer, but I am biased, but then so are you :brow:).

As far as existence, here I believe the text clearly indicates that the antichrist had recently appeared for the first time and the NASB even translates the word as appeared. While existence can be implied from the text, I think it is an extreme stretch over the much clearer appeared.


04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

Faramir – I apologize. I did not realize that the 1, 2, 3 of that post was a syllogism. However, in my opinion, your syllogism did not prove the point. As I have stated from my position, I agree with your points 1 and 2, but that certainly does not mandate that point 3 is true. Step 3 is not a logical conclusion mandated by points 1 &amp; 2. Instead, it is an inference that might be drawn, and in my opinion, quite strained. As I have said before, and I think your syllogism confirms my premise, 70 AD was included in the last days and as is today. We know this because there were many antichrists in both periods.

No need to apologize philpott, it wasn't meant to be a formal syllogism, just an explanation in syllogism format to clarify my position. In fact my conclusion said that it was "implied" from the text, not proven.

IMHO neither position can be proven from the text. If that is the case, no "nightmare for preterism"


04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

Again, much dissatisfaction has been expressed over my comments about 1 John 2:18 being “restricted” to 70 AD. Some of you have agree that it refers to 70 AD but do not want to “restrict” it to 70 AD. What is the difference? It the text is talking about 70 AD, then that is the period that the truth is restricted to, it seems to me. Please help me to understand the difference from your perspective.

It appears to me that as preterists, you must restrict the verse to 70 AD because it uses the term “last time.” If you do not, then here is a NT reference that preterists claim infers a near fulfillment, that did not apply to 70 AD. Instead it applies to the second coming. If this verse implies a near fulfillment (according to preterists) and actually will be fulfilled at the second coming, then why not all of the other verses that preterists say teaches a soon coming of Christ. Like I said, the whole system comes unraveled if you give this one verse away.

There may be some confusion over how the term "restricted" is being used. If you are saying that just because the term "last hour" is in that verse then it must be refering to AD 70, then yes, I do have a problem with that as some say that this verse does not even deal with eschatology (I think that that is what John Reece is saying correcty me if I am wrong)

However, if you are saying that IF this verse applies to AD 70 then it must[b] be exclusively applied to AD 70 I might agree with you and for the sake of argument will concede that point.

I also have another issue with the word "restrected". Even if v. 18 is eschatological, it does not mean that the rest of the passage is. As I have said elsewhere, I do not believe that this is primarily an eschatological passge.


04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
[b]philpott:
I still would like to see a syllogism expressing how an event can identify or define a period of time and that event occur in other time periods. I do not believe you can do it because it is a pure contradiction.

You are right it is pure contradiction, but it is also a begged quesiton. We need to focus on the interpritation of the verse.



04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

Well, it is almost midnight, so I guess I had better get to bed. I will try to continue this tomorrow night.

Finally for tonight, I have received many accusations of obsessions, using false premises, etc. What you are calling an obsession is that I believe the text means what it says. Thus far, no one has proven that the text does not mean what it clearly says. As for using a false premise, I hear you in that you claim that you do not believe that 1 John 2:18 applies to 70 AD. I am saying that the term in the text “last time” must be applied (i.e. restricted) to 70 AD by preterists in order to hold their system together. We all know that this does not work and is out of context, as most of you have agreed. However, the time text presuppositions used by preterists will be refuted if you do not apply this text to 70 AD. Either way the preterist looses. If he applies the text to 70 AD, then he has a clear contradiction in the flow of the text. If he doesn’t, then his use of time texts to prove his point are shot down.

Just becasue a text says "last hour" does not automatically make it an eschatological verse. It needs to be looked at in context, and looked at in light of other verses in the bible. (I think most preterist do this since IMHO if you do this you will eventouall become a preterist :tooth:) Since the term "last hour" (in Greek)is found nowhere else in the NT (I did a quick on-line lexicon search so it is possible I am wrong here), it may not necessarily mean the same thing as similar phrased elsewher (I believe it does, but it does not have to be)

And I think being obsessive about the Word is never wrong. I may not agree with your interpritation, but I am happy to call you brother. :thumb: Amen?


04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

Once again, I will say it: THE TEXT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

I agree, but but we disagree on what it says.


04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

O yes, two questions. I see people use the term IMHO frequently. What does it mean?

In My Humble (or Honest) Opinion.



04-10-2003 @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61548#post61548)
philpott:

Second, how do you copy the other person’s posts in the shaded boxes as most of you do?

You can click on the quote button at the end of a post or you can type [ quote ] put the quote here [ /quote ] without the spaces, but that will not identify the poster or the time.



04-10-2003 @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62162#post62162)
philpott:

Next, I liked your question, so let's pose it:

&quot;How can a preterist deny that 1 John 1:18 says that the existence of many antichrist is the sign whereby we will know that we are in the end times. ”

I like the question, but I am not sure what the difference is between that question and my request that preterists explain to me what they understand 1 John 2:18 to mean.[quote]

My bad I should have replace existence with appearance. :argh:

[QUOTE]04-10-2003 @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62162#post62162)
philpott:

Faramir:

What interpretation? All I said is the text means what it clearly states. One thing I am pretty sure of now is that even though my syllogism may not have been the world's best, the preterists now see the point. They also know what the text clearly states. So, yes, I keep insisting that the text means what it says.

I've addressed you syllogism elsewher in this post. Also the words "existence" and "defined" are no where in the text and are key to your agument.




Yesterday @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62802#post62802)
philpott:


I only have one word for your (John) last post. Amazing.

I cannot believe that a preterist is telling me that the phrase “last hour” does not apply to 70 AD. I thought that the obvious meaning of the terms was supposed to be one of the soundest proofs that preterism is true. Let’s see – last days applies to 70 AD, but last hour doesn’t.

I explained earlier why last hour does not have to reffer to AD 70. If it does not, there are plenty of other verses that support preterism. If it does, I have explained why I do not see the problem.


Yesterday @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62802#post62802)
philpott:

Next you tell me that when God said “it is the last hour, and as you have heard antichrist is coming…” that He was not referring to some specific period of eschatalogical fulfillment, but rather just another day. You wrote, “Not a prediction of the future, near or far: rather, it is a statement regarding the reality present as of the time the verse was written.” If you can live with that type of twisting, so be it.

It fits in well with the rest of the passage IMHO. I think it may also be referring to the "last hour" in eschatological terms, especially if it were written shortly before AD 70.


Yesterday @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62802#post62802)
philpott:


Once again, gentlemen, I have come to realize the futility of this conversation. While in one sense, it is fun to watch the gymnastics people go through to defend a false system. However, the Lord commands us to abstain from vain disputations.

What gymnastics. I think we are doing a very thorough job of analysing the text. There are many possible interpritations, many that are compatable with preterism. For the sake of argument, I have focused on one interpritation, but I have not ruled out others.


Yesterday @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62802#post62802)
philpott:

One more time: THE TEXT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS - and that constitutes a mortal wound to preterism.

One more time: THE TEXT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS - and it is compatable with preterism.

Thanks for participating in this thread it is quite stimulating.

I had to rush this post out, so please ignore any typos.

Also, if it seems a little rude and/or abrupt, take it as a rushed job, and not anyting personal, as my intent was cordial disagreement between two brothers in Christ.

Thanks again

Faramir