Pope Francis dead

[EvanF]

What’s with these memes about Francis going to heaven? Doesn’t RC dogma teach that he’s in purgatory for the time being?

Presumably he could have used his kingdom keys to remit his own sins using merit from the heavenly treasury.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Presumably he could have used his kingdom keys to remit his own sins using merit from the heavenly treasury.

One of the perks of being pope, I guess.

 

[No Other Name]

One of the perks of being pope, I guess.

Yep, for them it sure is a sweet gig if you can get it. And now the interviews and meetings and all the cardinals in contention waking up and looking themselves in the mirror saying "This is the moment you have been working for all your life" like an NFL draft prospect shooting for that sweet overall # 1 pick contract.

 

[DanSSwing]

Where did you get the idea of fulfilment of the texts in Thessalonians, Timothy and Revelation within the lifetime of the original audience? Where is that written?

2 Thess 2:6-7
"And you know who is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains will do so until he is out of the way."

Any Thessalonian reading that letter would understand that the man of lawlessness was alive right then as well as the one who was restraining him.

1 John 2:18
"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."

Rev 1:1-3
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

People can't just slap a "to God, a day is as a thousand years" on every time reference they don't like and the time reference instantly disappears. Paul and John were inspired to include those time references for a reason. They communicated something definite to the initial readers.
[automerge]1745937316[/automerge]

Why would the goings on of the Jewish temple be of any spiritual significance to the New Testament church? The Church is the temple of God.

Paul was still worshipping in the temple up through Acts 21. You can't simply dismiss it as having zero relevance after Jesus' death. It was a process, culminating in its destruction in 70 AD.

 

[Sam Jer]

Any Thessalonian reading that letter would understand that the man of lawlessness was alive right then as well as the one who was restraining him.

Unless they knew from Daniel 7 that after Rome's fall, the little horn will arise

Rev 1:1-3
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

The events did commence soon after this time. It's just that they are still ongoing. The resurrection, second coming, and final state have not occurred yet, nor have several other things in the book.

 

[DanSSwing]

Because the Church is God's temple


Paul seems to suggest that the ones who fall away follow the man of sin, not that they fight and loose a disastrous war against him... who do you see as the falling away in verse 3?

"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. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." - I John 2:18-19

And what makes Claudius the one who withholds the man of sin? What is the reason to think that?

Exegesis tells us both were alive at the time. I'm open to other suggestions, but history tells us he and Nero are the best candidates by far

Are you familiar with the line of argumentation out of Daniel 7 that makes the Roman Empire itself the one that withholds?

Withholds a catholic church that, at the time, was the body of Christ and didn't apostasize until centuries later? That's a bold strategy, Cotton.

 

[Sam Jer]

"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. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." - I John 2:18-19

What was the falling away? Who were the ones who fell away? Did they follow Nero?

Exegesis tells us both were alive at the time. I'm open to other suggestions, but history tells us he and Nero are the best candidates by far

Which exegesis tells us that?

Withholds a catholic church that, at the time, was the body of Christ and didn't apostasize until centuries later?

Withholds the mystery of iniquity from setting up Antichrist as God in said church. It was when western Rome fell that the papacy arose.

That's a bold strategy, Cotton.

I didn't get the reference. But if it's dismissive of my argument, you'll have to pick that beef with a lot of dead saints, including the Puritans after whom this board is named

 

[Brownie]

Rev 1:1-3
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

People can't just slap a "to God, a day is as a thousand years" on every time reference they don't like and the time reference instantly disappears. Paul and John were inspired to include those time references for a reason. They communicated something definite to the initial readers.
[automerge]1745937316[/automerge]

Does this mean that you believe that all of Revelation already has taken place? The preface obviously speaks of the entire book, including the final judgment. In Rev. 22:6-7 the Greek word for 'shortly' and 'quickly' is the same, so wouldn't that mean the same time period? The one speaks of the prophecies written and the other about Christ coming. How do you see this?

 

[DanSSwing]

The whole point of prophecy is to foretell things that weren't in existence when the text was written.

Anyone here could list a whole host of prophecies that did involve things in existence when the text was written, so things not in existence can hardly be the "whole point of prophecy."

 

[DanSSwing]

The point is that you have to "APPLY" the prophetic program to contemporary events that are not recorded in the Bible. You have to go outside the Bible to verify the fulfilment of prophecy. Your criticism of the reformers bounces back on you.

Is it newspaper eschatology to observe that Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy set a time frame within which the Messiah would come? I'm speaking purely of the timeline, not how it was fulfilled.

The very first thing we have to do with prophecy is see if there are any time constraints. We can't immediately look to current events and ignore the time constraints in the text. That's not how exegesis works.

 

[mpinckard]

"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. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." - I John 2:18-19


Exegesis tells us both were alive at the time. I'm open to other suggestions, but history tells us he and Nero are the best candidates by far


Withholds a catholic church that, at the time, was the body of Christ and didn't apostasize until centuries later? That's a bold strategy, Cotton.

I don't have strong views of the identity of the Antichrist at this point, so I say this as someone with no dog in this fight: you seem to think that your exegetical conclusions are just obvious from the text, and that any position that holds that the Antichrist was not alive during mid-first century requires a lot of hermeneutical gymnastics. I'm willing to be convinced that your conclusions are correct, but I don't think they're as obviously necessary from the text as you seem to be saying. Perhaps you come across that way mainly because of the limitations of this medium of discussion, but I'd urge greater humility and charity on this subject.

 

[pianoviolin]

I'd urge greater humility and charity on this subject.

100%! I always try to interpret prophecy with a degree of humility and not try to be dogmatic about things not fully revealed.

 

[DanSSwing]

Does this mean that you believe that all of Revelation already has taken place? The preface obviously speaks of the entire book, including the final judgment.

No. That's the error of the full preterists. But how they can claim that a prophecy which includes a 1,000-year (at a bare minimum) period could have been completely fulfilled within a period of between 3.5 and 70 years (depending on who you're listening to) is beyond me. I agree pretty much with Greg Bahnsen. 1-18 were fulfilled in the 1st century, and we're in chapter 19 now. (PS - I was pre-mil, pre-wrath, hyper-futurist) before reading Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus" and listening to Bahnsen's Sunday School series on Revelation.)

In Rev. 22:6-7 the Greek word for 'shortly' and 'quickly' is the same, so wouldn't that mean the same time period? The one speaks of the prophecies written and the other about Christ coming. How do you see this?

Even when the word is translated "quickly," it still entails "very soon," even sooner than a translation of "shortly." It never means that it will take place far off in the future but with great speed.
[automerge]1745947654[/automerge]

I don't have strong views of the identity of the Antichrist at this point, so I say this as someone with no dog in this fight: you seem to think that your exegetical conclusions are just obvious from the text, and that any position that holds that the Antichrist was not alive during mid-first century requires a lot of hermeneutical gymnastics. I'm willing to be convinced that your conclusions are correct, but I don't think they're as obviously necessary from the text as you seem to be saying. Perhaps you come across that way mainly because of the limitations of this medium of discussion, but I'd urge greater humility and charity on this subject.

Tone never translates well on the internet. in my opinion, every eschatology has a bullet to bite.

Note above that I was talking about the man of lawlessness and the restrainer being alive. If you believe the Antichrist (different text) IS the man of lawlessness (as I happen to), then the exegesis carries over. But I think someone could at least argue that they are two different people and the Antichrist is yet to come.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Anyone here could list a whole host of prophecies that did involve things in existence when the text was written, so things not in existence can hardly be the "whole point of prophecy."

Granted, but this does nothing to prove your assertion that prophecies must exclusively describe things that are in existence when the prophecy is given.

 

[TheInquirer]

It seems to me that if Rev 1-18 are entirely 1st century and then there is a big leap to the end of time in 19 in the Partial Preterist view, it is a similar construct the Futurists/Dispensationalists are doing by seeing Rev 1-4 1st century followed by a massive time leap to the 7 year trib. at the end of the age in chapter 5. Both are very Israel-centric focused constructs with massive time leaps that, to me, are hard to see in the text.

 

[DanSSwing]

Granted, but this does nothing to prove your assertion that prophecies must exclusively describe things that are in existence when the prophecy is given.

I have asserted nothing of the sort about prophecy in general.
[automerge]1745957879[/automerge]

It seems to me that if Rev 1-18 are entirely 1st century and then there is a big leap to the end of time in 19 in the Partial Preterist view, it is a similar construct the Futurists/Dispensationalists are doing by seeing Rev 1-4 1st century followed by a massive time leap to the 7 year trib. at the end of the age in chapter 5. Both are very Israel-centric focused constructs with massive time leaps that, to me, are hard to see in the text.

There’s no leap to the end of time in partial preterism. Rev 19 began in the 1st century and will continue as the rock grows into a mountain, as the kingdom expands while Christ reigns in the midst of His enemies.

 

[No Other Name]

I have asserted nothing of the sort about prophecy in general.

Just asserted it of NT prophecy minus Rev. 19ff? Or am I missing something?

 

[MW]

The very first thing we have to do with prophecy is see if there are any time constraints. We can't immediately look to current events and ignore the time constraints in the text. That's not how exegesis works.

Immediately? Therein lies the rub. Eventually you are looking for current events to fulfil the prophetic program. But it begs the question whether the interpretation is correct in the first place. The application might look good even where the interpretation leaves something to be desired.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Paul was still worshipping in the temple up through Acts 21. You can't simply dismiss it as having zero relevance after Jesus' death. It was a process, culminating in its destruction in 70 AD.

Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews to demonstrate that the physical temple and its rites had no spiritual significance in the New Testament.

Paul worshipping in it in Acts 21 was done for pragmatic reasons, as Acts 21:24 states.

 

[DanSSwing]

Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews to demonstrate that the physical temple and its rites had no spiritual significance in the New Testament.

Paul worshipping in it in Acts 21 was done for pragmatic reasons, as Acts 21:24 states.

It just strikes me as a bit of stretch to say that, when Paul refers to the temple in 2 Thess, he's speaking cryptically about the body of Christ. If he had wanted to talk about the physical temple in Jerusalem, how else would he have worded it? "Takes his seat in the temple" sure sounds like he's talking about the physical temple. If the man of lawlessness was going to take his seat in the temple, I think Paul would have written it just as he did. There's plenty of NT references to false teachers within the church and none of them use this sort of language.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

It just strikes me as a bit of stretch to say that, when Paul refers to the temple in 2 Thess, he's speaking cryptically about the body of Christ. If he had wanted to talk about the physical temple in Jerusalem, how else would he have worded it? "Takes his seat in the temple" sure sounds like he's talking about the physical temple.

"Take his seat in the temple" would be highly unusual language for the physical temple in Jerusalem, which is never, from Exodus to Revelation, said to have any sort of chair or throne. (Note the "mercy-seat" was not a seat, as is clearer in the Greek [ἱλαστήριον], Hebrew, and Latin versions [propitiatorium]).

The language of "being seated" is borrowed from the custom of kings who sit on their throne, to explain how the Antichrist would rule in a monarchial fashion.

Compare the use of "sit" in Ps. 110:1, Deut. 17:18, 33:21, Ex. 11:5, Ex. 18:14, Jdg. 5:10, 1 Kg. 1:13, etc.

There's plenty of NT references to false teachers within the church and none of them use this sort of language.

That's actually not true. Compare Mt. 23:3,
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."

 

[TheInquirer]

There’s no leap to the end of time in partial preterism. Rev 19 began in the 1st century and will continue as the rock grows into a mountain, as the kingdom expands while Christ reigns in the midst of His enemies.

So which coming of Christ is being described in Revelation 19? Why is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. such a big deal in salvation history that it occupies 18 chapters of the final book of the Bible? Since when was Jerusalem a port city that made the rest of the world rich? So many odd problems created by this view.

 

[DanSSwing]

Why is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. such a big deal in salvation history that it occupies 18 chapters of the final book of the Bible? Since when was Jerusalem a port city that made the rest of the world rich? So many odd problems created by this view.

It took no less than 60 hours of study to convince me of this position. I won't convince you in a few paragraphs. I recommend you read chapter 13 of Ken Gentry's "The Divorce of Israel." I'm sure Gary DeMar and others have podcasts or videos also explaining why Jerusalem is rightly described as a great city.

My main point is that we must take the time indicators seriously. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers to include them to communicate something to the initial recipients, and we can't simply dismiss all time indicators as relative because that's how God views it. Eschatology must be done from the bottom-up, faithfully exegeting each passage in its context rather than trying to impose a "theory that fits the facts" system from the top down.

 

[No Other Name]

I have been following this with great interest and only asking a couple of questions here and there.

we can't simply dismiss all time indicators as relative because that's how God views it.

Who is doing that here and with what text?

Eschatology must be done from the bottom-up, faithfully exegeting each passage in its context rather than trying to impose a "theory that fits the facts" system from the top down.

I am very sure you also consider yourself as avoiding this error, but is there any indication amongst your interlocutors that would lead you to think they are doing so even unknowingly? If so, how so?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

My main point is that we must take the time indicators seriously.

Have you interacted with my post above showing that the time indicators of 2 Thes. 2 describe something future, between Paul's day and Christ's 2nd coming?

 

[DanSSwing]

"Take his seat in the temple" would be highly unusual language for the physical temple in Jerusalem, which is never, from Exodus to Revelation, said to have any sort of chair or throne. (Note the "mercy-seat" was not a seat, as is clearer in the Greek [ἱλαστήριον], Hebrew, and Latin versions [propitiatorium]).

The language of "being seated" is borrowed from the custom of kings who sit on their throne, to explain how the Antichrist would rule in a monarchial fashion.

Compare the use of "sit" in Ps. 110:1, Deut. 17:18, 33:21, Ex. 11:5, Ex. 18:14, Jdg. 5:10, 1 Kg. 1:13, etc.

Just to be clear, there is no noun for seat or throne in this verse. It's a verb, so we shouldn't get hung up on there being no physical chair.

That's actually not true. Compare Mt. 23:3,
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."

Didn't Jesus tell the crowd to do what the scribes and the Pharisees teach them but warned them not to follow their hypocritical examples?

 

[DanSSwing]

I am very sure you also consider yourself as avoiding this error, but is there any indication amongst your interlocutors that would lead you to think they are doing so even unknowingly? If so, how so?

This all blew up when I said: "I've never seen that conclusion arrived at as the result of an actual exegesis of 2 Thessalonians, 1 John, or Revelation." And I still haven't. I want to see the exegesis of how a 1st-century original recipient of the letter would have understood it. I do not deny that futurists are looking for a theory that fits the facts. But their methodology always involves hindsight, often making unstated assumptions, most frequently "X could not have been fulfilled already because, if it were, it would be obvious to everybody." Using this approach, the time indicators are always the first to be dismissed. And we haven't even gotten into Matthew 10:23!

 

[Sam Jer]

This all blew up when I said: "I've never seen that conclusion arrived at as the result of an actual exegesis of 2 Thessalonians, 1 John, or Revelation." And I still haven't. I want to see the exegesis of how a 1st-century original recipient of the letter would have understood it. I do not deny that futurists are looking for a theory that fits the facts. But their methodology always involves hindsight, often making unstated assumptions, most frequently "X could not have been fulfilled already because, if it were, it would be obvious to everybody." Using this approach, the time indicators are always the first to be dismissed. And we haven't even gotten into Matthew 10:23!

What do you believe "the son of man comes" means in this passage?

 

[No Other Name]

This all blew up when I said: "I've never seen that conclusion arrived at as the result of an actual exegesis of 2 Thessalonians, 1 John, or Revelation." And I still haven't.

Yeah you were in post # 38 specifically:

The Truth of God Against Popery (1851) is exegetical enough. Candlish's lecture (p.549 of the PDF) deals with the WCF (& LBC) claim directly.

Maybe you missed it. When you open it, the TOC will say Candlish starts on 527 but as @St. Gerdt says here just type in 549 on the pdf.

But their methodology always involves hindsight, often making unstated assumptions, most frequently "X could not have been fulfilled already because, if it were, it would be obvious to everybody." Using this approach, the time indicators are always the first to be dismissed.

You keep saying this but what does this mean? What time indicators are dismissed specifically?

EDIT: So this is not a circle, I really mean you never answered Post # 81.

 

[DanSSwing]

Yeah you were in post # 38 specifically:



Maybe you missed it. When you open it, the TOC will say Candlish starts on 527 but as @St. Gerdt says here just type in 549 on the pdf.

I opened it. That's not an exegesis of a text.