Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Guest

Matthew 24

Recommended Posts

Guest

This is just my take on the following verses after reading and consolidating in a spread sheet. I have no idea what my thoughts on this make me nor do I care. But, I do want to make sure I'm not straying off on a weird tangent. I will be asking my pastor about my thoughts on this.

Matthew 24 Christ answers 3 questions from verse 3…(1) "when shall these things be" (2) "what shall be the sign of thy coming" (3) "what shall be the sign...of the end of the world"
Matthew 24:4-14 "Take heed," in verse 4 is a warning to "listen up!." This is a summary lead in to all three questions posed by the disciples to Christ. Opened with an attention getter, if you will.
Matthew 24:15-22 This appears to be the answer to (1) The destruction of the temple and the immediate aftermath.
Matthew 24:23-51 This appears to be the answer to (2) The signs and the return of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 25:1-46 This appears to be the answer to (3) the end of this world and the new Kingdom of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my take on the following verses after reading and consolidating in a spread sheet. I have no idea what my thoughts on this make me nor do I care. But, I do want to make sure I'm not straying off on a weird tangent. I will be asking my pastor about my thoughts on this.

Matthew 24 Christ answers 3 questions from verse 3…(1) "when shall these things be" (2) "what shall be the sign of thy coming" (3) "what shall be the sign...of the end of the world"
Matthew 24:4-14 "Take heed," in verse 4 is a warning to "listen up!." This is a summary lead in to all three questions posed by the disciples to Christ. Opened with an attention getter, if you will.
Matthew 24:15-22 This appears to be the answer to (1) The destruction of the temple and the immediate aftermath.
Matthew 24:23-51 This appears to be the answer to (2) The signs and the return of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 25:1-46 This appears to be the answer to (3) the end of this world and the new Kingdom of Christ.


Fwiw (I know, not much) exactly as I have been teaching it for over 30 yrs (I'm almost certain there are at least 2 here that will probably dissent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Fwiw (I know, not much) exactly as I have been teaching it for over 30 yrs (I'm almost certain there are at least 2 here that will probably dissent)


What does "Fwiw" mean?

I recently began a study in eschatology and this was my first stab in many years at it. It seemed very straight forward to me. I just finished up 1 Thessalonians chapters 4&5 and they seem straight forward as well. The next place I'll be reading is Luke chapter 21 to compare with Matthew 24/25. Edited by 1Tim115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "Fwiw" mean?

I recently began a study in eschatology and this was my first stab in many years at it. It seemed very straight forward to me. I just finished up 1 Thessalonians chapters 4&5 and they seem straight forward as well. The next place I'll be reading is Luke chapter 21 to compare with Matthew 24/25.


I'm thinking it means, "for what it's worth".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my take on the following verses after reading and consolidating in a spread sheet. I have no idea what my thoughts on this make me nor do I care. But, I do want to make sure I'm not straying off on a weird tangent. I will be asking my pastor about my thoughts on this.

Matthew 24 Christ answers 3 questions from verse 3…(1) "when shall these things be" (2) "what shall be the sign of thy coming" (3) "what shall be the sign...of the end of the world"
Matthew 24:4-14 "Take heed," in verse 4 is a warning to "listen up!." This is a summary lead in to all three questions posed by the disciples to Christ. Opened with an attention getter, if you will.
Matthew 24:15-22 This appears to be the answer to (1) The destruction of the temple and the immediate aftermath.
Matthew 24:23-51 This appears to be the answer to (2) The signs and the return of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 25:1-46 This appears to be the answer to (3) the end of this world and the new Kingdom of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest




Not much at present. I want to make sure before I comment and particularly on something another preacher taught. Maybe later after, "Christ be formed in" me.


John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




I see you used the NIV in this sermon.

Also, all the tribes of the earth watched Jesus ascend to the Father and the coming of the Son of man is really the going of the Son of man? Edited by Wilchbla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you used the NIV in this sermon.
3 elderly English in the congregation - no others familiar with KJV language. I do not establish doctrine from the NIV, & I use the KJV in preparation.

Also, all the tribes of the earth watched Jesus ascend to the Father and the coming of the Son of man is really the going of the Son of man?h/
Jesus is quoting from Dan. 7 & his ascension, vindication & reign. The Jewish leaders "saw" what he was referring to, & condemned him for blasphemy. Sadly they would see with clear understanding too late when his prophecies were fulfilled. "Tribes" is used to refer to Israel - they pierced him. A yet future people. whether Jew or Gentile, did not pierce him.

When he does come again for resurrection & judgment, everyone will see him. Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Jesus emphasised: 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.....
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

He was not prophesying into the far future. "This generation" passed in AD 70. We need to understand Mat. 24 & 25 in that light. His prophecy was literally fulfilled. Now we must live in the expectation of his return in glory.

Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I see you used the NIV in this sermon.

From another thread:



I have discovered the versions used by Wilchbla - New Living or Good News
26
"After this period of sixty-two sets of seven,* the Anoi
nt
ed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished n
ot
hing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end.

27 The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven,* but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds,* he will set up a sacrilegious
ob
ject that causes desecration,* u
nt
il the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him."
(NLT)


26
And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed unjustly.
[
]
The city and the Temple will be destroyed by the invading army of a powerful ruler. The end will come like a flood, bringing the war and destruction which God has prepared.

27
That ruler will have a firm agreeme
nt
with many people for seven years, and when half this time is past, he will put an end to sacrifices and offerings. The Awful Horror
[
]
will be placed on the highest poi
nt
of the Temple and will remain there u
nt
il the one who put it there meets the end which God has prepared for him.” (GNV)


The KJV reads:
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but n
ot
for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and u
nt
o the end of the war desolations are determined.

27
And
he shall confirm the covena
nt
with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
ob
lation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Surely Messiah confirms the covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


From another thread:

Surely Messiah confirms the covenant.


The covenant was broken when the prince cause the sacrifices to cease.

You do know that there is a difference between "Messiah the Prince" and "people of the prince"? Don't cha? Or do you actually think that the "people of the prince" are born again believers who razed the temple, sacked the city and caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease?

You still can't explain what the confirmation for a week is with the interpretation you come up with. So Jesus confirmed a covenant for seven years than in the midst of those seven years caused the sacrifices to cease?

It clear from the cross reference I gave you that the "covenant" is the Mosaic Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Only the tribes of Israel pierced him? The future people did not pierce him? I pretty sure that the whole world pierced Christ. If I remember Paul made this clear in Romans and Corinthians.

Romans 3:19- Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

I Cor. 2:8- Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Brother, you are completely mangling the bible as I said before. I'm pretty sure that nobody in your congregation believes what you are saying. At least nobody who is reading the passages before them. Edited by Wilchbla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The covenant was broken when the prince cause the sacrifices to cease.

You do know that there is a difference between "Messiah the Prince" and "people of the prince"? Don't cha? Or do you actually think that the "people of the prince" are born again believers who razed the temple, sacked the city and caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease?

You still can't explain what the confirmation for a week is with the interpretation you come up with. So Jesus confirmed a covenant for seven years than in the midst of those seven years caused the sacrifices to cease?

It clear from the cross reference I gave you that the "covenant" is the Mosaic Law.


That again is a silly post. "The prince" was not the subject of the sentence, so the "He" refers back to the last subject male mentioned, Messiah. Even if you do not agree with that grammar, in the OT, pronouns often refer back several places. As the whole prophecy is of the coming and work of Jesus, the Saviour, I consider it a gross error to introduce the Antichrist intoi it, as Scofield does. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That again is a silly post. "The prince" was not the subject of the sentence, so the "He" refers back to the last subject male mentioned, Messiah. Even if you do not agree with that grammar, in the OT, pronouns often refer back several places. As the whole prophecy is of the coming and work of Jesus, the Saviour, I consider it a gross error to introduce the Antichrist intoi it, as Scofield does.


What? The prince isn't the subject?

Again, according to your thinking the "people of the prince" (i.e. the Messiah) are the ones who destroyed the city. This would make it born again believers according to your thinking. You cannot get around this nor explain it with your heresy. You have born again Christians destroying the temple and sanctuary.

I don't know, maybe this is how Christians in Europe justified persecuting Jews for the last 1500 years. Maybe they thought it was commanded by Jesus himself.

If you want to know who the prince is who destroys the temple you need to read the next chapter but I realize neither you nor Covenantor will grasp it's truth because you are both blinded by your hatred for the nation of Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? The prince isn't the subject?

Again, according to your thinking the "people of the prince" (i.e. the Messiah) are the ones who destroyed the city. This would make it born again believers according to your thinking. You cannot get around this nor explain it with your heresy. You have born again Christians destroying the temple and sanctuary.

I don't know, maybe this is how Christians in Europe justified persecuting Jews for the last 1500 years. Maybe they thought it was commanded by Jesus himself.

If you want to know who the prince is who destroys the temple you need to read the next chapter but I realize neither you nor Covenantor will grasp it's truth because you are both blinded by your hatred for the nation of Israel.


The prince who would come was the prince who did come, Titus. His people, the Roman soldiers, did destroy the temple, against his orders. If you have read any of my posts, you will see that I don't agree with Covenanter on many points, and I don't hate Israel.

If you have read my posts you will see that I have consistently said that Covenanter's Preterism is a Jesuit teaching, just as your Futurism is.

Edited to remove my first line, for which I apologize. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime ago, I read a book from the library, which said that Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 each contain all we need to understand the story, but as Mark is more concise and easier to understand, we should start there. He later gave each version in side by side parallel columns.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should lock it.

It's your thread but I always prefer a respectful discussion in Christian love than a locked thread.

First Corinthians 13 gives us a list of good things we can do but then adds that if we do those things without love it's as nothing. We all too often forget that when it comes to posting online. Scripture says people will know who the followers of Christ are by their love for one another. Are we being mindful to speak (post) to one another in love as we seek to share our understanding of Scripture, question anothers, or wrestle with an issue?

Just because we sometimes disagree doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. We (Christians) of all people should be able to discuss the Word in love, not in antagonism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has become a disappointing thread. :mellow:


Well, John, why don't you ever add anything to this subject except your complaining about the meanies all the time? You never seem to come to defend the truth but only attack those whom you find mean. You don't seem to mind someone whose teachings led to the slaughter of millions of Jews and who himself wants the Jews kicked out of their rightful land yet you have a big problem with calling someone "blind" or saying they are mangling the scripture (Peter called it "wresting" which is just as bad) when they are. To me this is "straining at a gnat yet swallowing a camel". It wouldn't matter how I would respond, John, you would still find fault with it like you did in the thread about the identity of the Antichrist (yeah, man, I remember that one). Invicta and Covenator say without a doubt it's the Pope yet you attacked premillennialists (which would include me) in the thread for trying to figure out who the Antichrist is when were the ones who said we don't know who he is while Invicta and Covenator say without a doubt it the Pope! Kind of a contradiction wouldn't you say.

Go ahead and locked this thread because I'm personally sick and tired of hearing this conceited teaching against Israel (Romans 9) and the spineless Christians afraid to say anything against it. If I was a Jew browsing some of these threads by Invicta and Covenantor I would think "typical Jew bashing Christians".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, John, why don't you ever add anything to this subject except your complaining about the meanies all the time? You never seem to come to defend the truth but only attack those whom you find mean. You don't seem to mind someone whose teachings led to the slaughter of millions of Jews and who himself wants the Jews kicked out of their rightful land yet you have a big problem with calling someone "blind" or saying they are mangling the scripture (Peter called it "wresting" which is just as bad) when they are. To me this is "straining at a gnat yet swallowing a camel". It wouldn't matter how I would respond, John, you would still find fault with it like you did in the thread about the identity of the Antichrist (yeah, man, I remember that one). Invicta and Covenator say without a doubt it's the Pope yet you attacked premillennialists (which would include me) in the thread for trying to figure out who the Antichrist is when were the ones who said we don't know who he is while Invicta and Covenator say without a doubt it the Pope! Kind of a contradiction wouldn't you say.

Go ahead and locked this thread because I'm personally sick and tired of hearing this conceited teaching against Israel (Romans 9) and the spineless Christians afraid to say anything against it. If I was a Jew browsing some of these threads by Invicta and Covenantor I would think "typical Jew bashing Christians".


I really do wonder how you come to your conclusions. And if you actually read our posts.

I do not agree with Covenanter on most points.


I say that the pope is antichrist, I agree with the church beginning with the Waldensians in about AD 1160 who wrote their "Treatise on Antichrist at that time when the pope got to his heights of wickedness. Huss taught the same. His letters on the subject are preserved by Foxe. He calls Rome, Babylon, The RCC "The great strumpet" and the Pope, Antichrist. The church Baptists and reformers all taught the same till about 1800 or so. For 800 years the church has taught that the pope is Antichrist, although since Rome introduced futurism and preterism, to deflect the attention from her, the teaching has been less common. The sad part of this is that it has allowed Ecumenism to flourish, which it never would if we still taught that the pope was Antichrist.

Covenanter thinks the Antichrist is some anonymous individual who died in AD 70.

I am a millenialist, Covenanter is A-mil.


I believe that Israel being in the land is prophecied in the bible, Covenanter does not.

Wherever do you get your views that confuse us.

Covenanter thinks the book of Revelation was written before AD 70, I belive, as you probably do, that it was written about AD 96. This teaching only bears any relevance to Covenanters point of view, as it is dependant on an early date, but my beliefs, or yours, I would say, are not affected by an early date or a late date.

Here is the Waldensian Treatise on Antichrist. This post attibutes it to Peter de Bruys, but it is usually thought to be the work of Petrus de Lyon, aka Peter Waldo.

Waldensian Treatise on Antichrist

COGwriter
The Waldensians were not part of the Church of Rome and were comprised of people with various practices. Some were likely to have been in the Church of God (but by the 1600s most Waldensians became completely Protestant, and hence not part of the COG).
This paper contains the extracts of translation of a document that one associated with them produced called "A Treatise concerning Antichrist, Purgatory, the Invocation of Saints, and the Sacraments" as shown in Jones, William. The history of the Christian church from the birth of Christ to the xviii. century, Volumes 1-2, 3rd edition. R.W. Pomeroy, 1832. Original from Harvard University, Digitized, Feb 6, 2009, pp. 337-340.
"The treatise has indeed been attributed, and not without probability, to the pen of Peter de Bruys" from around 1120 and was reported by a Frenchman named Perrin (ibid, p. 336). Now I doubt that Peter de Bruys wrote it as it contains errors in doctrine and because some of the comments seem to be referring to actions that happened in the 13th and/or 14th centuries (see some items in the paper Persecutions by Church and State). By that time, less and less of the Waldensians held to COG doctrines.
Anyway, here is what was supplied (including some comments from William Jones; and the original punctuation which is not always entirely clear):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Antichrist is a falsehood, or deceit varnished over with the semblance of truth, and of the righteousness of Christ and his spouse, yet in opposition to the way of truth, righteousness, faith, hope, charity, as well as to moral life. It is not any particular person ordained to any degree, or office, or ministry, but it is a system of falsehood, opposing itself to the truth, covering and adorning itself with a show of beauty and piety, yet very unsuitable to the church of Christ, as by the names, and offices, the Scriptures, and the sacraments, and various other things, may appear. The system of iniquity thus completed with its ministers, great and small, supported by those who are induced to follow it with an evil heart and blind-fold—this is the congregation, which, taken together, comprises what is called Antichrist or Babylon, the fourth beast, the whore, the man of sin, the son of perdition. His ministers are called false prophets, lying teachers, the ministers of darkness, the spirit of error, the apocalyptic whore, the mother of harlots, clouds without water, trees without leaves, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, wandering stars, Balaamites and Egyptians.
"He is termed Antichrist because being disguised under the names of Christ and of his church and faithful members, he oppugns the salvation which Christ wrought out, and which is truly administered in his church—and of which salvation believers participate by faith, hope, and charity. Thus he opposes the truth by the wisdom of this world, by false religion, by counterfeit holiness, by ecclesiastical power, by secular tyranny, and by the riches, honours, dignities, with the pleasures and delicacies of this world. It should therefore be carefully observed, that Antichrist could not come, without a concurrence of all these things, making up a system of hypocrisy and falsehood—these must be, the wise of this world, the religious orders, the pharisees, ministers, and doctors; the secular power, with the people of the world, all mingled together. For although Antichrist was conceived in the times of the apostles, he was then in his infancy, imperfect and unformed, rude, unshapen, and wanting utterance. He then wanted those hypocritical ministers and human ordinances, and the outward show of religious orders which he afterwards obtained. As he was destitute of riches and other endowments necessary to allure to himself ministers for his service, and to enable him to multiply, defend, and protect his adherents, so he also wanted the secular power to force others to forsake the truth and embrace falsehood. But growing up in his members, that is, in his blind and dissembling ministers, and in worldly subjects, he at length arrived at full maturity, when men, whose hearts were set upon this world, blind in the faith, multiplied in the church, and by the union of church and state, got the power of both into their hands.
"Christ never had an enemy like this; so able to pervert the way of truth into falsehood, insomuch that the true church, with her children, is trodden under foot. The worship that belongs alone to God he transfers to Antichrist himself—to the creature, male and female, deceased—to images, carcasses, and relics. The sacrament of the eucharist is converted into an object of adoration, and the worshipping of God alone is prohibited. He robs the Saviour of his merits, and the sufficiency of his grace in justification, regeneration, remission of sins, sanctification, establishment in the faith, and spiritual nourishment; ascribing all these things to his own authority, to a form of words, to his own *works, to the intercession of saints, and to the fire of purgatory. He seduces the people from Christ, drawing off their minds from seeking those blessings in him, by a lively faith in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and teaching his followers to expect them by the *will and pleasure and works of Antichrist.
He teaches to baptize children into the faith, and attributes to this the work of regeneration; thus confounding the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, with the external rite of baptism, and on this foundation bestows orders, and indeed grounds all his Christianity. He places all religion and holiness in going to mass, and has mingled together all description of ceremonies, Jewish, Heathen, and Christian; and by means thereof, the people are deprived of spiritual food, seduced from the true religion and the commandments of God, and established in vain and presumptuous hopes. All his works are done to be seen of men, that he may glut himself with insatiable avarice; and hence every thing is set to sale. He allows of open sins, without ecclesiastical censure, and even the impenitent are not excommunicated. He does not govern, nor does he maintain his unity by the Holy Spirit, but by means of the secular power, making use of the same to effect spiritual matters.. He hates, and persecutes, and searches after, and plunders, and destroys the members of Christ. These are some of the principal of the works of Antichrist against the truth, but the whole are past numbering or recording.
On the other hand, he makes use of an outward confession of faith; and therein is verified the saying of the apostle—"They profess in words that they know God, but in works they deny him." He covers his iniquity by pleading the length of his duration, or succession of time, and the multitudes of his followers—concerning whom it is said in the Revelation, that " power is given him over every tribe, language, and nation, and all that dwell on the earth shall worship him." He covers his iniquity by pleading the spiritual authority of the apostles, though the apostle expressly says, " We can do nothing against the truth"—and " there is no power given us for destruction." He boasts of numerous miracles, even as the apostle foretold—"Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all miracles and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness." He has an outward show of holiness, consisting in prayers, fastings, watchings, and alms-deeds, of which the apostle testified, when he said, " Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."
Thus it is that Antichrist covers his lying wickedness as with a cloak or garment, that he may not be. .rejected as a pagan or infidel, and under which disguise he can go on practising his villanies boldly, and like a harlot. But it is plain from both the Old and New Testament that a Christian stands bound by express command to separate himself from Antichrist. [Here the following scriptures are quoted at large from the Old Testament, Isa. Hi. 11, 12. Jer. 1. 8. Numb. xvi. 21. and ver.6. Lev. xx. 24—27. Exod. xxxiv. 12, 15. Lev. xv. 31. Ezek. ii. Deut. xx.] Now it is manifest from the New Testament, John xii. that the Lord is come, and hath suffered death that he might gather together in one the children of God; and it is on account of this unity in the truth, and their separation from others, that it is said in Matt. x. " I am come to separate a man from his father, and to set the daughter against the mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and those of a man's own household shall be his enemies." Christ hath enjoined this separation upon his disciples, when he said, " Whosoever doth not forsake father and mother, &c. cannot be my disciple." And again, " Beware of false prophets, which come unto you in sheep's clothing." Again, " Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees—and take heed lest any man seduce you, for many shall come in my name and seduce many." And in the book of the Revelation he 'warns by his own voice, and charges his people to go out of Babylon, saying, " Come out of her, my people, and be not partakers of her sins, that ye receive not of her plagues ; for her sins are come up unto heaven, and the Lord remembereth her iniquity." The apostle says the same. " Have no fellowship with unbelievers, for what communion hath righteousness with iniquity, or what agreement hath' light with darkness, or what concord hath Christ with the devil, or what part hath a believer with an infidel, or the temple of God with idols ? Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you, and be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
From what has been said, we may learn wherein consist the perverseness and wickedness of Antichrist, and that God commands his people to separate from him, and to join themselves to the holy city, Jerusalem. And since it hath pleased God to make known these things to us by his servants, believing it to be his revealed wilt,'according to the Holy Scriptures, and admonished thereto by the command of the Lord, we do, both inwardly and outwardly, depart from Antichrist. We hold communion, and maintain unity, one with another, freely and uprightly, having no other object to propose herein, but purely and singly to please the Lord, and seek the salvation of our own souls. Thus, as the Lord is pleased to enable us, and so far^as our understandings are instructed into the path of duty, we attach ourselves to the truth of Christ, and to his church, how mean soever she may appear in the eyes of men. We therefore, have thought it good to make this declaration of our reasons for departing from Antichrist, as well as to make known what kind of fellowship we have, to the end that, if the Lord be pleased to impart the knowledge of the same truth to others, those that receive it may love it together with us. It is our desire also, that if peradventure, others are not sufficiently enlightened, they may receive assistance from this service, the Lord succeeding it by his blessing. On the other hand, if any have received more abundantly from him, and in a higher measure, we desire with all humility to be taught, and instructed better, that so we may rectify whatever is amiss.

The Treatise then proceeds to sketch and succinctly to confute the numerous abominations of popery, and to show how they all tend to subvert the faith of Christ, and destroy the souls of men; but my limits will only allow of a very abridged view of this masterly stateme
nt
.

" Be it known," they say, " to all in general, and to every one in particular, that these are the reasons of our separation, viz. It is for the truth's sake which we believe—for the knowledge which we have of the only true God, and the unity of the divine essence in three persons, a knowledge which flesh and blood cannot communicate—it is for the worship due to that only true God—for the love we owe him above all things—for the sanctification and honour which are due to him supremely, and above every name—for the lively hopes which we have in God through Christ—for regeneration and the renewing of our minds by faith, hope, and charity—for the worthiness of Jesus Christ, with the all-sufficiency of his grace and righteousness—for the communion of saints—the remission of sins—an holy conversation—for the sake of a faithful adherence to all the commands in the faith of Christ —for true repentance—for final perseverance, and everlasting life."
" A various and endless idolatry, in opposition to the express command of God and Christ," say they, " marks the genius of Antichrist —divine worship offered, not to the Creator, but to the creatures, visible and invisible, corporeal and spiritual, male and female—unto which creatures, they present the worship of faith and hope, works, prayers, pilgrimages, and alms, oblations and sacrifices of great price—honouring and adoring them in various ways, by hymns and songs, speeches and solemnities, and celebration of masses, vespers peculiarly appropriated to them, with vigils and feast-days, hoping thereby to obtain that grace which is essentially in God alone, which is meritoriously in Christ, and which is obtained only by faith through the Holy Spirit.
" Another feature which characterizes Antichrist is the excessive love of the world, whence springs an endless train of sin and mischief in the church, as well in those that govern, as in them that officiate— both of whom sin without control. With this is connected the false hopes which Antichrist holds out, of pardon, grace, justification, and everlasting life, as things not to be sought from and obtained in Christ, nor in God through Christ, but in men, living or dead—not by that true and living faith which worketh by love, producing repentance, and influencing the mind to depart from evil, and give itself up to God."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: While much of the above is correct, not all is (including comments about the Godhead). While all who profess Christ and are not of the true Church of God are following ministers of antichrist (who could all be called antichrists), there will be an actual person who will be the final Antichrist. More information can be found in the article Some Doctrines of Antichrist.
Waldensian Treatise on Antichrist. www.cogwriter.com/waldensian-treatise-on-antichrist.htm Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, John, why don't you ever add anything to this subject except your complaining about the meanies all the time? You never seem to come to defend the truth but only attack those whom you find mean. You don't seem to mind someone whose teachings led to the slaughter of millions of Jews and who himself wants the Jews kicked out of their rightful land yet you have a big problem with calling someone "blind" or saying they are mangling the scripture (Peter called it "wresting" which is just as bad) when they are. To me this is "straining at a gnat yet swallowing a camel". It wouldn't matter how I would respond, John, you would still find fault with it like you did in the thread about the identity of the Antichrist (yeah, man, I remember that one). Invicta and Covenator say without a doubt it's the Pope yet you attacked premillennialists (which would include me) in the thread for trying to figure out who the Antichrist is when were the ones who said we don't know who he is while Invicta and Covenator say without a doubt it the Pope! Kind of a contradiction wouldn't you say.

Go ahead and locked this thread because I'm personally sick and tired of hearing this conceited teaching against Israel (Romans 9) and the spineless Christians afraid to say anything against it. If I was a Jew browsing some of these threads by Invicta and Covenantor I would think "typical Jew bashing Christians".

Pretty much all this post is way off base on what I've addressed, and that Christians are to love one another, or even the actual topic here.

What has led to the slaughter of millions of Jews? Sin! The Jews, because of their association with God, have been targets everywhere they have been by everyone around at some point. The devil has used sinful man to try and thwart God's will, such as his attempts to prevent the Saviour from coming, and the devil and sinful man have never stopped their attacks upon Jews. Pagans, heathens, Muslms Catholics Christians and others have all attacked the Jews and some still do today.

Covenanter and Invicta, from what I can tell, hold to differing views with regards to Israel and the end times. So do many others on this forum.

When it comes to eschatology I read and consider every reasonable, civil post put forth regardless of who posts it or what view they might be presenting. I compare the differing posts with one another and consult Scripture. This is what Paul commended the Bereans for doing. It's not just eschatology, but since that's topic of the thread, I used that as an example.

Also, I pointed out that I addressed this topic a year or so ago when our pastor was preaching from Luke 21 but I don't recall the name of the thread. That was an open door if anyone happened to recall the name of the thread.

When a thread devolves into arguing rather than discussing, when Christian brothers are treating one another in an unchristlike manner, there is no chance of edification.

We are called to mortify our flesh, put it to death, not let it have it's way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter de Bruys, seemed to be a baptiist. Like many of Christ;s faithful witnesses, most, if not all, that we know about him is known by the writings of their enemies.

Treatise of Peter the Venerable
Peter the Venerable, also known as Peter of Montboissier, was an abbot who became a popular figure in the church, an internationally known scholar, and an associate of many national and religious leaders of his day.[3] He was also an important religious writer and, in the preface to his treatise that attacked Peter of Bruys, he summed up the five teachings he saw as the errors of the Petrobrusians.

The first error was their denial "that children, before the age of understanding, can be saved by the baptism...According to the Petrobrusians not another’s, but one’s own faith, together with baptism, saves, as the Lord says, 'He who will believe and be baptised shall be saved, but he who will not believe shall be condemned.'"[4] This idea ran counter to the medieval Church's teaching, particularly in the Latin West where, following the theology of Augustine, the baptism of infants and children played an essential role in their salvation from the ancestral guilt of original sin.[5][6] Infant baptism was most likely widespread in the early centuries of the faith and virtually a universal practice by the 5th century. The belief in baptism for all in the Church, including infants, was based on the words in the Gospel according to John : "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."[7]
The second error charged was that the Petrobrusians said, “Edifices for temples and churches should not be erected...The Petrobrusians are quoted as saying, 'It is superfluous to build temples, since the church of God does not consist in a multitude of stones joined together, but in the unity of the believers assembled.'”[4] Orthodox thinkers felt cathedrals and churches were created to glorify God. It was seen as appropriate that those buildings should be as grand and as beautiful as wealth and skill could make them.[8]
The third error enumerated by Peter the Venerable was that the Petrobrusians “command the sacred crosses to be broken in pieces and burned, because that form or instrument by which Christ was so dreadfully tortured, so cruelly slain, is not worthy of any adoration, or veneration or supplication, but for the avenging of his torments and death it should be treated with unseemly dishonour, cut in pieces with swords, burnt in fire.”[4] This was seen as an extreme position. The cross symbol had been associated with Christianity since its early years, indicated by the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius of Minucius Felix written at the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 3rd.[9]
The fourth error, according to Peter the Venerable, was that the Petrobrusians denied sacramental grace, rejecting the rite of Communion entirely, let alone the doctrine of the real presence or the nascent Scholastic account of transubstantiation. Peter of Bruys taught that Christ had never been born in the flesh and had never truly suffered and died, therefore, the Eucharist was without meaning.[10] “They deny, not only the truth of the body and blood of the Lord, daily and constantly offered in the church through the sacrament, but declare that it is nothing at all, and ought not to be offered to God. They say, 'Oh, people, do not believe the bishops, priests, or clergy who seduce you; who, as in many things, so in the office of the altar, deceive you when they falsely profess to make the body of Christ, and give it to you for the salvation of your souls.'"[4] The term "transubstantiation", used to describe the transformation of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin in about 1079.[11] The theory was quickly becoming accepted as orthodox doctrine at the time of the attacks by Peter of Bruys. In less than two centuries, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council officially declared transubstantiation the necessary, orthodox Catholic explanation for the change that takes place in the Eucharist.[12]
The fifth error was that “they deride sacrifices, prayers, alms, and other good works by the faithful living for the faithful dead, and say that these things cannot aid any of the dead even in the least...The good deeds of the living cannot profit the dead, because translated from this life their merits cannot be increased or diminished, for beyond this life there is no longer place for merits, only for retribution. Nor can a dead man hope from anybody that which while alive in the world he did not obtain. Therefore those things are vain that are done by the living for the dead, because since they are mortal they passed by death over the way for all flesh to the state of the future world, and took with them all their merit, to which nothing can be added.”[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sometime ago, I read a book from the library, which said that Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 each contain all we need to understand the story, but as Mark is more concise and easier to understand, we should start there. He later gave each version in side by side parallel columns.


When I read the three versions of this discourse from Christ I could easily recognize Mark 13 and Luke 21 were only summaries of Christs words. While Matthew 24 and 25 caught not only a lead in summary but then Christ answered each of three questions presented to him by his disciples in greater detail. See the OP for the divisions in Matthew and see what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...