The Many Insurmountable Difficulties of Futurism: The Temple of God

[Protestant]

Futurists would have us believe the temple of God found in Rev. 11 is a literal future re-built Jewish Temple located in Jerusalem.

However, Jesus’ statement contradicts that teaching:

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple [Gr: hieron] and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. [Gr: hieron]

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Rather than illustrate the destruction of the Temple in vague terms Jesus specifically details the destruction in such a way as to lead the unbiased reader to conclude that the Temple shall not only be thrown down, but it will stay down.

And down it has stayed…..for nigh unto 2,000 years thus far.

To further guarantee it stays down, the Lord has sovereignly raised up the Palestinian Sunni Muslims so that they would build their most sacred mosque, Dome on the Rock, on the very grounds upon which the Jewish Temple once stood.

So then what does the temple of Rev. 11 refer to if not a literal re-built Jewish Temple?

Scripture gives us the answer.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, [Gr: naon] and in three days I will raise it up.

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

But he spake of the temple [Gr: naou] of his body.

(See Strong’s Concordance # 3485, naos.)

Please note that the literal temple of which Jesus was speaking in Matt. 24 uses the Greek noun hieron (Strong’s Concordance # 2411).

When speaking of the ‘temple of the body’ the Greek noun naos is always used.

Know ye not that ye are the temple [Gr: naos] of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

If any man defile the temple [Gr: naon] of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple [Gr: naos] of God is holy, which (temple) ye are.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple [Gr: naos] of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

And what agreement hath the temple [Gr: naou] of God with idols? for ye are the temple [Gr: naos] of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple [Gr: naon] in the Lord.

Let us now examine Rev. 11 to determine whether the Temple cited in the Greek text is that of hieron – the literal temple – or naos, the anti-type of the Jewish Temple……….the body of Christians in whom the Spirit of God dwells.

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple [Gr: naon] of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

But the court which is without the temple [Gr: naou] leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

In point of fact, the temple of Rev. 11 and all other references to the Temple of God in the Revelation speak of the spiritual temple of believers.

I encourage the reader to discover for himself that the only Greek noun used in the Revelation referring to the temple of God is naos.

Now let us consider, another prophetic Scripture in which the phrase temple of God is utilized:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple [Gr: naon] of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Once again, we have confirmation that the temple of God about which the Holy Spirit speaks is the spiritual temple of God: the Body of Christ: the professing Christian Church…..not a literal re-built Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

Antichrist will be a fraudulent professing Christian who will claim rule over the professing universal Christian Church.

That fraud is the Bishop of Rome: the reigning Pope holding the Papal office.

Futurism is a false teaching whose origins are found in the perverted teachings of the Papal-worshipping anti-Christian Jesuits.

 

[DHK]

Antichrist will be a fraudulent professing Christian who will claim rule over the professing universal Christian Church.

That fraud is the Bishop of Rome: the reigning Pope holding the Papal office.

Futurism is a false teaching whose origins are found in the perverted teachings of the Papal-worshipping anti-Christian Jesuits.

This entire conclusion makes no sense; has nothing to do with any of the above scriptures, and is totally speculative.
The word "ekklesia" translated as "church" means assembly. There is no such thing as a universal church. Your argument fails on that point alone.

You fail to distinguish between two entities: the first beast and the second beast; the antichrist and the false prophet. The pope can never be the antichrist. He is a religious entity not a political entity. It is possible he may fit the description of the false prophet, but even that is speculative. We don't know; we are not told.

 

[kyredneck]

....Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple [Gr: naon] of God, shewing himself that he is God.....

What about Paul's "Man of Sin"?

The Man of Sin. A study of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12. Verses 1-2. concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come."

If the understanding of the nature of the coming (return) of the Lord by Paul's first readers was in keeping with most traditional, modern-day notions of a rapture-removing, visible, world seeing, or world-ending coming, they could not have been led to believe that it had already come (see again our evidences 3 and 4 in the last chapter).

Verses 3-4. "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man lawlessness [man of sin] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction [son of perdition - KJV]. He opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, and even sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

Paul wrote during the time of a literal, standing, second Temple. He gave no hint that this event would occur centuries later in some other "rebuilt" temple. His first readers apparently expected this fulfillment in their lifetime. That's why some feared that that "day of the Lord" had already occurred. Also, let's note how Paul's prophetic words here match up with Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24). Both speak of the same set of events, use similar language, and convey a strong sense of imminence.

History records that the Jewish rebellion against Rome and apostasy from the faith was already underway in the early 60s, and reached its climax in the Jewish-Roman War of A.D. 66 - 70. We propose that Paul's "man of sin" was, most likely, a specific person who set himself up in the Temple that was standing when Paul was writing. He could have been (take your pick) Nero, Titus, a Zealot leader; the corrupt chief high priest, or a Christian Zealot. All except Nero physically entered the Temple. Though Paul never calls him "antichrist;' the Apostle John tells us that there were many "antichrists" at work at that time (1 Jn. 2:18; 4:3). No doubt this "man of sin" was one of them. But he was also a special person who had to come on the scene prior to the Lord's return in A.D. 70 and before the Temple was destroyed.

Verses 5-7. "Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way"

Paul had mentioned this power of lawlessness on other occasions (see 1 Th. 2:14-16; 1 Ti. 4:1). The Jews were revolting against Rome and rejecting the sacred practice of biblical Judaism. Some followers of Christ who remained zealous for the Temple system were departing from the new faith and falling back into the old ways. But behind it all was "the secret power of lawlessness." It was "already at work," there and then, but something and/or someone was holding the "man of sin" back at the time Paul wrote this letter (circa A.D. 51 - 52). Whatever that was, Paul reminded his first readers that they already knew its/his identity. So Paul didn't have to tell them. And he didn't. Since they knew who or what it was, it could not possibly have been something or someone that would not exist for some nineteen or more centuries. But who or what was it?

Throughout Church history endless speculation has revolved around the identity of this restrainer. However, we do know that this restraint was in force when Paul wrote,- and was actively holding back a "man of sin" alive at that time. This fact is a time indicator and should answer the question of when. Some have suggested that the "who" was Nero or the Roman government, which held back Jewish persecution of the early Jewish Christians. Futurists say it's the gospel, the Church, the Holy Spirit, or an angel. But if any of these is what was really meant, why did the writer use such veiled language? None of these things is ever portrayed in Scripture as restraining lawlessness or being removed from the world.

The best answer-we believe-is that it was both an office (the "what") and a person (the "one who" or "he"). More specifically, it was the institution of the Jewish priesthood led by Ananus, the high priest. The priesthood opposed the Jewish, Zealot-led rebellion. And Ananus wanted peace with Rome. As long as he and the priesthood stood in the way, the lawlessness of the Jewish Zealots was held back, the "work of Satan" couldn't reach its full realization, and the "man of sin" couldn't appear on the scene and cause the final destruction. In A.D. 68, however, Jewish Zealots, with the assistance of the Idumaeans, murdered Ananus and over 12,000 other priests and left their bodies unburied-a violation of the Jewish Law Thus, the priesthood was "taken out of the way" As Josephus wrote in his history of the fall of the city:

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city; and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high-priest, and the procurer of their preservation; slain in the midst of their city;. for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed: to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived that would have certainly compounded matters... and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these great defenders and wellwishers.

Verses 8-10. a Ad then the lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming [parousia]. The coming [parousia] of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved!"

All this happened in the very Temple that was standing until A.D. 70. As the war between the Jews and Rome developed, a strong leader of the Jewish Zealots emerged who would fulfill Paul's prophecy. He would soon become the key man in inciting the Jews against Rome, in bringing abominations into the Temple area, and in causing the final destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. After Ananus' murder and the removal of the priesthood. Josephus records that a man named John, the son of Levi, fled to Jerusalem from the Roman conquered area of Gischala in Galilee and became the treacherous leader of the Jewish Zealots in control of the Temple area. Also Josephus wrote, "Now this was the work of God, who therefore preserved this John, that he might bring on the destruction of Jerusalem."

Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work. This John physically entered the Temple, presented himself to the Zealots as a God-sent ambassador; and persuaded them to defy the laws of Rome and go to war to gain independence. He also instigated the calling in the Idumaeans to keep the Jewish sympathizers from submitting to Rome. He ordered the death of Ananus and the removal of the priesthood. After these atrocities, he became the official leader of the Zealot group m control of theTemple area-john held the temple" and began disregarded the laws of Rome, God, and man, and promising deliverance from the Romans. Then he broke off from the Zealots and began "setting up a monarchial power." He "set on fire these houses that were full of corn, and of all other provision which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years" He deceived the Jews about the power of the Roman armies In possession of the Temple and the adjoining parts, he cut the throats of anyone suspected of going over to the Romans.13 He performed many sacrileges, such as melting down the sacred utensils used in Temple service, and defiled the Temple.

In short, this John established himself in the Temple, the one standing when Paul wrote, and put himself above Rome and above God, thereby taking the place of God in the Temple. All this happened, right then and there, and exactly as Paul had said the "man of sin" would do.

After the coming of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, John of Gischala was "condemned to perpetual imprisonment" by the Roman authorities. Thus was fulfilled Paul's prophetic and symbolic language that this man would be destroyed by "the spirit of his Jesus mouth and brightness of his [parousia] coming" (see Isa. 11:4; 30:27-33; Hos. 6:5; also Da. 7:8, 19-28).

 

[kyredneck]

What about Paul's "Man of Sin"? continued:

Verses 11-12. "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but delighted In wickedness."

Josephus records that the Roman General Titus had no intention of destroying the Temple. The Romans wanted to preserve it as a trophy and monument of their conquest. Even Josephus personally pleaded with John of Gischala to surrender. But such a "madness" swept through him and his Jewish followers that they taunted the powers of Rome and refused to listen. This man, John, through the power of Satan and the delusion sent by God upon the Jewish people, forced the Roman armies to act. Instead of accepting Jesus as Messiah, King, and Deliverer, the unbelieving Jews placed their hopes in this false messiah a man of deceit and wickedness. They looked to the "man of sin" to lead them to victory and independence. The priesthood, which stood in their way, had been removed. And by August or September of A.D. 70, Paul's entire "man of sin" prophecy of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 was fulfilled. The city and the Temple were burned and destroyed. The covenant nation of Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed.

Only within this first century context does the Apostle Paul's "man of sin prophecy make sense and have its greatest significance. No justification exists for separating Paul's words from either the Temple standing at the time of his writing or the end of the Jewish age. John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was a contemporary of Paul. He was Paul's "man of sin." The eyewitness account of Josephus, a Jewish-Roman historian, truthfully and impartially documents his treachery and his critical role in Jerusalem's demise. No one else in history-Gains Caesar, Nero, Titus, or Domitian comes as close to fulfilling this prophecy as this most influential and deceiving Zealot leader John of Gischala took over the forces of iniquity He stood in the Temple itself and exalted himself above all that is called God. He put himself above both God and Caesar. He regarded neither the laws of God nor those of man. He therefore "set himself up" in the Temple, taking the place of God.

Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

In dramatic paralleled fashion, Scripture gives this "man of sin" John of Gischala, the son of Levi- the name of" the one doomed to destruction" or "the son of perdition," the same name given to another infamous betrayer, Judas Iscariot (compare Jn. 17:12 with 2Th. 2:3 KJV). Both appeared in the same "last days" time frame of the Old Covenant age. Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

He was that 1st-century man who had to be revealed before the day of Christ in A.D. 70, and who was destroyed when it came. No future "man of sin" need come and fulfill this prophecy; it has already been fulfilled.

 

[Protestant]

This entire conclusion makes no sense;

I have proven the temple of God in Revelation and 2 Thess. 2 is the spiritual temple of God, the Body of Christ, comprised of professing believers.

has nothing to do with any of the above scriptures, and is totally speculative.

The Antichrist, whom all Futurists believe will sit in the literal re-built Jewish temple, will instead sit in the spiritual temple of God, the professing Christian Church.

"To sit" in biblical terminology is "to rule."

The word "ekklesia" translated as "church" means assembly. There is no such thing as a universal church. Your argument fails on that point alone.

My response:

1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.http://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm

You fail to distinguish between two entities: the first beast and the second beast; the antichrist and the false prophet.

2Thess. 2 speaks of the Antichrist who sits as ruler over all Christians. The Christian Church is universal as indicated in Rev. 7:9-10:

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Christians are not limited to Canadians. :>)

(Continued in next post)

 

[Protestant]

The pope can never be the antichrist. He is a religious entity not a political entity.

You need learn the history of the Papacy....an easy study from any home computer.

Also, I will re-paste my previous post in blue which answers the question as to the Papacy's political prowess:

The Antichrist of Scripture is both a political and professing ‘Christian’ religious world leader whose headquarters is Rome.

The Pope of Rome is both a political and professing ‘Christian’ religious world leader whose headquarters is Rome.

The Pope is ruling Head of the Holy See as well as the Absolute Monarch of the Vatican City State:

“The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) is the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome, the episcopal see of the Pope…….The Holy See is viewed as analogous to a sovereign state, having a centralized government, called the Roman Curia, with the Cardinal Secretary of State as its chief administrator and various departments essential to administration comparable to ministries. It enters diplomatic relations with states, and has Vatican City as its sovereign territory.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See

“Eighty countries currently maintain embassies to the Holy See. The Vatican City State, over which the Holy See is sovereign, is the smallest independent nation in the world and its size renders any resident diplomatic community impractical. Therefore, all embassies to the Holy See are located in Rome…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...o_the_Holy_See

“The Holy See—as distinguished from the city-state of the Vatican City, over which the Holy See has "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction",[1] has long been recognised as a subject of international law and as an active participant in international relations. It remains such, and indeed one observer has said that its interaction with the world has, in the period since World War II, been at the highest point it has ever had.

The diplomatic activities of the Holy See are directed by the Secretariat of State (headed by the Cardinal Secretary of State), through the Section for Relations with States.

Since medieval times the episcopal see of Rome has been recognized as a sovereign entity. Earlier, there were papal representatives to the Emperors of Constantinople, beginning in 453, but they were not thought of as ambassadors. In the eleventh century the sending of papal representatives to princes, on a temporary or permanent mission, became frequent.[4] In the fifteenth century it became customary for states to accredit permanent resident ambassadors to the Pope in Rome……

The Holy See, as a non-state sovereign entity and full subject of international law, started establishing diplomatic relations with sovereign states in the 15th century….

….. The Holy See currently has diplomatic relations with 180 sovereign states.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...f_the_Holy_See

The Papacy is as political as any political office can be.

Which is why the Pope is constantly receiving an endless stream of Heads of State.

The political intrigues within the Vatican are legendary.

It is possible he may fit the description of the false prophet, but even that is speculative. We don't know; we are not told.

The Antichrist is both a false prophet and political leader.

That does not negate the fact that he has an army of false prophets who do his bidding.

Many reside comfortably in professing Evangelical Christianity.

 

[Protestant]

What about Paul's "Man of Sin"? continued:

Kentucky:

I appreciate the fact that you hold to an entirely different view of the Man of Sin.

Perhaps one day I will specifically address the Preterist view, but since that view is the minority view held by Christians I feel an obligation to address that view which is held by the vast majority: Futurism.

Blessings in Christ!

 

[DHK]

I have proven the temple of God in Revelation and 2 Thess. 2 is the spiritual temple of God, the Body of Christ, comprised of professing believers.

Perhaps you have proven that you do not rightly divide the word of truth.
First, in this day and age the body is the temple of God or the temple of "the Holy Spirit which you have of God," which is more precise (1Cor.6:19,20). That is speaking of our relationship with Christ.

This scripture is speaking of an actual physical temple:
[FONT=&quot]2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.[/FONT]
--There will be "a man of sin." He is an actual person, real and physical. People cannot sin in my heart, my body, my spirit! Duh! Use some common sense here!!
This is a real physical temple, that a real physical person is going to enter and declare himself to be God. There are many such people today that declare themselves to be deity. I can name you half a dozen. One such person will rise up, make a pact with the Jews, and somehow declare his divine authority to the world.

Your terminology shows your lack of knowledge:
You say: "the Body of Christ, comprised of professing believers."
The only "body of Christ" is the local church. Every local church is a body of Christ. There is no such thing as a universal church which is the body of Christ.
All believers make up the family of God or the Kingdom. And whether you speak of a "church," the "family of God," or "His Kingdom," none of them include the unsaved, by virtue of definition. There is no such thing as "professing believers." You either are a believer or you are not. There is no sitting on the fence.
It is hard to have a discussion with a person whose terminology is all over the map, and every second word has to be redefined according to the Bible.

The Antichrist, whom all Futurists believe will sit in the literal re-built Jewish temple, will instead sit in the spiritual temple of God, the professing Christian Church.

There is no such thing as "sitting in a spiritual temple." Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? This man is going to make a pact with the Jews, break that pact half way through the Tribulation of seven years, and then desecrate the Temple. Facts are facts. If you choose not to believe them, I cannot help you.

"To sit" in biblical terminology is "to rule."

And so it has that connotation. No argument. But it won't be for long. He will ultimately be overthrown.

My response:

Your response was useless. Restrict your response to the actual definition of the word, not to how it is used today. Here is the definition of the word:

ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation​

Original Word: ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ekklésia
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-klay-see'-ah)
Short Definition: an assembly, congregation, church
Definition: an assembly, congregation, church;

The last two entities it gives: "the Church, the whole body of Christian believers," are not scriptural ones, they are extra-biblical. An assembly is not mystical. This is a contradiction of his own definition. It certainly isn't in the Bible.
It is not mystical in the Bible. That is a common error which the author went on to describe. It is a modern definition not a Biblical one.
We are having a discussion about this topic right now.
It is here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2159998&postcount=4
Note in this post where your thinking comes from:

The idea of a "universal" church was conceived by Augustine and his abusive interpretation of the parable of the "tares" in the field, which "field" Jesus defined as "the world" but Augustine interpreted "world" as "the church universal."

The idea of a "universal invisible" church was conceived by Luther who simply modified Augustine's flawed interpretation of Matthew 13 and "the world" to be "the church" but in addition to "universal" it was "invisible" so that the Papal bulls of exclusion could be ignored.

Prior to the Reformation there cannot be found any doctrine of a "universal Invisible" church. The only thing even similar that can be found is the FUTURE concept of the church in heaven, which again, is visible and localized but containing all the saints. But no PRESENT universal invisible concept can be found prior to the Reformation.

Get your terminology right.

2Thess. 2 speaks of the Antichrist who sits as ruler over all Christians. The Christian Church is universal as indicated in Rev. 7:9-10:

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

You haven't made your case yet.
The Pope is a religious leader, the head of the RCC.
He does not fit the description of a political head of state no matter what you say. It is not convincing.
There are two beasts. The first is the antichrist; the second is the false prophet (the religious leader). Thus the Pope could not be the antichrist.
The antichrist in 2Thes.2 rules over all people, not just Christians.

 

[Yeshua1]

Kentucky:

I appreciate the fact that you hold to an entirely different view of the Man of Sin.

Perhaps one day I will specifically address the Preterist view, but since that view is the minority view held by Christians I feel an obligation to address that view which is held by the vast majority: Futurism.

Blessings in Christ!

The manof Sin will male the temple obligations cease, and will proclaim himself as being God, so how can that be the Papacy?

 

[Protestant]

The manof Sin will male the temple obligations cease, and will proclaim himself as being God, so how can that be the Papacy?

Thanks for your sincere question, Yeshua1.

Your question takes for granted several assumptions which are points of disagreement.

For centuries Christians have understood the spiritual nature of the NT Temple: the Body of Christ.

Futurism re-defines this Temple as literal and re-built.

I have shown by Scriptural evidence that ‘hieron’ always refers to the literal OT Temple.

2 Thess. 2 and the entire book of Revelation use only ‘naos’ to refer the Temple: the same noun which always refers to the spiritual Temple of God: the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Church.

Next, you assume (as all Futurists assume) that Daniel 9:27 speaks of Antichrist making a covenant with the Jews allowing them to rebuild their Temple, then in the middle of 7 years breaks covenant, demanding their literal animal sacrifices cease.

However, for centuries Christians have understood the passage to refer to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, confirming the everlasting covenant made with the Father on behalf of all the Elect, both Jew and Gentile.

The OT sacrifices were only shadows of the one final perfect sacrifice of Christ.

Thus, the OT Temple was no longer viable and, after Christ’s sacrifice, any sacrifice thereafter was considered an abomination, though the Jews claimed to do so in the name of YHWY.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is also considered such an abomination.

For these abominations the OT Temple was destroyed, as will the Vatican one day be destroyed for its abominations done in the name of Christ.

In previous posts I have explained how the Pope usurped the offices of Christ, ‘Christ’ being an official title, ‘anointed One’, anointed to carry out offices as God’s Prophet, Priest and King.

As such the Pope fulfills the literal definition of Antichrist: one who purports to come in the name of Christ as His friend and personal representative, yet, in reality is His enemy. For by stealth he opposes Christ, overturning His teachings while stealing Christ’s offices and worship.

Christians have always known Christ is the sole Head of the Church, though the Pope claims he is the Head of the Christian Church on earth.

The one who takes upon Himself the offices of ‘Christ’ is ‘shewing’ – not verbally openly proclaiming – but showing, demonstrating, displaying himself to be God.

By overturning the commandments of God, as do the doctrines and commandments of the Church of Rome, the ruling Head, the Pope, shows himself to be the greater God.

To claim obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation is showing oneself to be God.

By creating God through the foul doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Pope shows himself to be greater God.

N.B. Are you at all concerned that Rev. Billy Graham has preached a false Gospel of salvation apart from Christ (without repentance on his part), or are you of the opinion, as is DHK, that it ain’t no big deal?

I find it curious I am the only one on this board who is outraged by it.

 

[Protestant]

Your terminology shows your lack of knowledge:
You say: "the Body of Christ, comprised of professing believers."
The only "body of Christ" is the local church. Every local church is a body of Christ. There is no such thing as a universal church which is the body of Christ.
All believers make up the family of God or the Kingdom. And whether you speak of a "church," the "family of God," or "His Kingdom," none of them include the unsaved, by virtue of definition. There is no such thing as "professing believers." You either are a believer or you are not. There is no sitting on the fence.

The Body of Christ is comprised of those Elect worldwide (Jew and Gentile) who make up the many members of Christ’s Body.

Christ is the Head of the Body….the Head of the Church Universal.

The Pope, on the other hand, declares he is the Head of the Universal (Catholic) Church on earth.

Baptist theology correctly states the above definitions which support my view:

Chapter 26: Of the Church

1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )

2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors averting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )
4._____The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html

Please note the cross reference to 2Thess 2.

Baptists define the Temple of God as the Christian Church in which the Papal Antichrist claims to sit as Head.

I urge you to study the historical theology of Baptists.

The old paths are so much wiser than the new.

The local congregations are composed of both Elect and non-Elect, saved and unsaved, the wheat and the tares.

Yet both are considered part of the local church.

Both profess Christ yet not all who call Jesus Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sadly, many of the unsaved stand behind the pulpit.

 

[DHK]

The Body of Christ is comprised of those Elect worldwide (Jew and Gentile) who make up the many members of Christ’s Body.

That is a common but unbiblical idea. It is difficult to substantiate through Scripture. Ekklesia means assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction in terms.

Christ is the Head of the Body….the Head of the Church Universal.

There is no such thing as a universal church just as there can't be a universal assembly unless it assembles in heaven, and it will some day. The word "church" simply means "assembly." Read Darby's translation where the word ekklesia is properly translated.

The Pope, on the other hand, declares he is the Head of the Universal (Catholic) Church on earth.

Of course. He can say anything he wants can't he. The Catholic apologist says "The sun never sets on the RCC," and to some degree he is right given the large number of Catholics spread all over this world.

Baptist theology correctly states the above definitions which support my view:

No it doesn't. The LBC is not my confession of faith. In fact there are many Baptists that don't subscribe to it. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. You know about sola scriptura, right?
I don't have much use for confessions, creeds, etc. They have some usefulness in historical matters and that is about all. Thus your point is not proven.
One thing you should have learned about Baptists is that they are independent and autonomous. IOW, we are a heterogeneous group of believers. Our churches vary one from another. Because of our independency, our aversion to denominationalism, we are all do not hold to the same doctrine. Haven't you noticed the different and varied doctrines debated in the Baptist theology forum?

Please note the cross reference to 2Thess 2.

I notice it every time I read it.

Baptists define the Temple of God as the Christian Church in which the Papal Antichrist claims to sit as Head.

[FONT=&quot]2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.[/FONT]
--I assume you are referring to this "temple."
First, no it is not a "Christian" temple. Remember that by this time, "Christians" will have been raptured. They won't be there.
The Temple will be Jewish. Jewish Temples are desecrated, not Christian temples. An unbeliever cannot desecrate a Christian temple, for his temple is his body (1Cor.6:19,20).
I don't know what books you read. I don't know anyone who defines the temple of 2Thes.2:4 as a Christian Church--absolutely no one. You are out to lunch on that one.

I urge you to study the historical theology of Baptists.

I urge you to study the Bible.

The old paths are so much wiser than the new.

No man is wiser than Christ.

The local congregations are composed of both Elect and non-Elect, saved and unsaved, the wheat and the tares.

Here is a definition of a local church for you:

A local church is an assembly of baptized (immersed) believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission and observing the ordinances of Christ (baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper).

Given the above definition a local church is not composed of any "non-elect." It is composed only of "baptized believers."

Yet both are considered part of the local church.

Both profess Christ yet not all who call Jesus Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sadly, many of the unsaved stand behind the pulpit.

Some people try and fool men, but they cannot fool God. The Lord knows them that are His. The so-called U-church has far more tares in it than any local church.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.[/FONT]
--Paul wrote the above verse to the elders of the Ephesian church (vs.17).
Christ shed his blood for the local church, meaning every Biblical local church. That is how much the local church means to him. There is no such thing as a U-church. It doesn't exist.

Let's look at this verse once more:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.[/FONT] (Darby)
--Shepherd the assembly of God. It is not a universal church, so-called.

 

[Protestant]

Originally Posted by Protestant:

"The Body of Christ is comprised of those Elect worldwide (Jew and Gentile) who make up the many members of Christ’s Body."

That is a common but unbiblical idea. It is difficult to substantiate through Scripture. Ekklesia means assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction in terms.

Protestant Quote:

"Christ is the Head of the Body….the Head of the Church Universal."

There is no such thing as a universal church just as there can't be a universal assembly unless it assembles in heaven, and it will some day. The word "church" simply means "assembly." Read Darby's translation where the word ekklesia is properly translated.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

The Epistle to the Ephesians clearly contradicts your faulty interpretation.

Christ is head of His Body which is comprised of many members, all Jewish and Gentile believers called Christians.

Christ is head of His Church which is comprised of many members, all Jewish and Gentile believers called Christians.

Christ's Body and Christ's Church are one and the same.

Christ does not have several bodies or several churches.

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 

[DHK]

The Epistle to the Ephesians clearly contradicts your faulty interpretation.

Keep in mind that Paul is writing to a church, ekklesia, an assembly or local church. Keep in mind the historical context. How would the believers at that time understand this epistle. There was no such understanding or any such concept of a "universal church" in the first century.

Christ is head of His Body which is comprised of many members, all Jewish and Gentile believers called Christians.

Christ is head of His Church which is comprised of many members, all Jewish and Gentile believers called Christians.

He was speaking to the believers at Ephesus. This is obvious. Do you have Jewish believers in your church? No (at least probably not--we do have one person in our church who is a converted Jew
--but it is not like half the congregation as it was in Ephesus).
--Christ was the head of the church at Ephesus. That is what he said. And as he was the head of that local church so is He the head of every Bible-believing church.

Christ's Body and Christ's Church are one and the same.

There is no "Church" only "churches." Your concept is not in the Bible. The word means "assembly."

Christ does not have several bodies or several churches.

Christ dwells in me. Are you saved? Then does he dwell in you? What about the other believers on this board? Does he dwell in them?
How many Christs are there then? Thousands? Millions? How can Christ be divided up if he dwells in so many people? You are asking the same type of non-sense question about Christ being the head of each biblical church.
Read carefully 1Cor.12. The Corinthian church is called "a body of Christ." It has several members, and Paul compares each member to a part of the body--a human body. Each one has to do his own part or the body doesn't function properly. This can only be true of a local assembly.
"And where one member suffers all members suffer together."
This can only be true of a local assembly.

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

How many wives do you have?
Christ has only one wife/bride. That bride is composed of all believers.
But he is the head of every Bible believing church. That is what he teaches. Each local church is a body. Read 1Cor.12

 

[Protestant]

Keep in mind that Paul is writing to a church, ekklesia, an assembly or local church. Keep in mind the historical context. How would the believers at that time understand this epistle. There was no such understanding or any such concept of a "universal church" in the first century.

Had you taken the care to read the first verse of Ephesians, you would have realized the Epistle was written to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Were there not the faithful In Christ Jesus throughout the ages?

And did not this Epistle hold as much importance to them as to the Ephesians?

There is no disagreement that by 'church' may be meant a local assembly of believers 'called out' of the world and into Christ.

The letters to the 7 churches confirms this truth.

However, not all those who profess to be part of Christ's local churches are part of Christ's one, true Church comprised of all the redeemed throughout the history of the world.

This truth was taught in the parables of the wheat and the tares, as well as by Paul when he stated that 'they are not all Israel which are of Israel.'

In other words, spiritual Israel and physical Israel are two completely different classifications.

The former found favor with God while the latter is rejected by God.

Thus the one Church and one Body of which Paul discusses in Ephesians is that Church and Body of Christ worldwide which are the true Israel --- the blood bought, spirit-filled, regenerated, who have the faith of Abraham, and for whom Christ died.

 

[DHK]

Had you taken the care to read the first verse of Ephesians, you would have realized the Epistle was written to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

I believe I referred you to that verse.

Were there not the faithful In Christ Jesus throughout the ages?

No, most believers don't last that long, and most churches don't last that long. Why would you ever think that?

And did not this Epistle hold as much importance to them as to the Ephesians?

To who? It was written to the Ephesians who were faithful in Christ. That is a description of the Ephesian believers.

There is no disagreement that by 'church' may be meant a local assembly of believers 'called out' of the world and into Christ.

The letters to the 7 churches confirms this truth.

However, not all those who profess to be part of Christ's local churches are part of Christ's one, true Church comprised of all the redeemed throughout the history of the world.

There is no such thing as a U-Church. Ekkesia means assembly.
Are all of God's redeemed part of the family of God, yes; the bride of Christ, yes.

This truth was taught in the parables of the wheat and the tares, as well as by Paul when he stated that 'they are not all Israel which are of Israel.'

This is applicable at the end of the age. It is an eschatological parable.

In other words, spiritual Israel and physical Israel are two completely different classifications.

Yes, but they speak of Israel.

Thus the one Church and one Body of which Paul discusses in Ephesians is that Church and Body of Christ worldwide which are the true Israel --- the blood bought, spirit-filled, regenerated, who have the faith of Abraham, and for whom Christ died.

The only worldwide church is the church of the Antichrist still to come.
There is a clear-cut division between Israel and the NT believers. It is the RCC which believes that the "Church" replaces Israel. It is a heresy known as Replacement Theology, if that is what you are advocating.

 

[BobRyan]

There is also the statement (in addition to many excellent points made in the OP) that in Matt 23 Christ said "you house is left to you desolate" speaking of the temple and pronouncing the curse of Solomon on the Temple - a curse defined at the building of Solomon's temple where he predicts the utter destruction of it should they choose rebellion.

Dan 9 says that the Jews had 490 years to figure out if they were going to go with God's plan or not. The Messiah would come near the end of that time at the 483 year mark - and 3.5 years later be crucified. "Cut off".

Then 3.5 years after the death of Christ - Stephen is stoned and a change is made such that the Church turns to Gentile evangelism as Peter does in Acts 10 and as Paul does in Acts 13.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Protestant]

Perhaps you have proven that you do not rightly divide the word of truth.

I recently came across a sermon by Spurgeon which corroborates the premise of the OP: the NT Temple of God is comprised of all the members of His universal Church. His sermon is based on the Scripture,

He shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory. -- Zechariah 6:13.

I. The first point is THE TEMPLE. The temple is the church of God; and here let me begin by just observing, that when I use the term "church of God," I use it in a very different sense from that in which it is sometimes understood……[because] all Christians constitute the church. Any company of Christian men, gathered together in holy bonds of communion for the purpose of receiving God's ordinances, and preaching what they regard to be God's truths, is a church; and the whole of these churches gathered into one, in fact all the true believers in Christ scattered throughout the world, constitute the One true Universal Apostolic Church, built upon a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail………

Well, now, this church is called the temple of God, and Christ is said to be its builder. Why is the church called the temple? I reply very briefly, because the temple was the place where God especially dwelt……..if you would know what is the secret place of the tabernacle of the Host High, the inner chamber of divinity, you must go where you find the church of true believers, for it is here he makes his continual residence known -- in the hearts of the humble and contrite, who tremble at his word.

Certainly DHK does not believe Spurgeon is yet another Baptist witness who does not rightly divide the word of truth…..or does he?

http://biblehub.com/library/spurgeo...me_4_1858/christ_glorified_as_the_builder.htm

The Universal Church = The NT Temple of God = The Body of Christ = the Bride of Christ = all those for whom Christ died and purchased with His blood.

 

[DHK]

I recently came across a sermon by Spurgeon which corroborates the premise of the OP: the NT Temple of God is comprised of all the members of His universal Church. His sermon is based on the Scripture,

He shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory. -- Zechariah 6:13.



Certainly DHK does not believe Spurgeon is yet another Baptist witness who does not rightly divide the word of truth…..or does he?

http://biblehub.com/library/spurgeo...me_4_1858/christ_glorified_as_the_builder.htm

The Universal Church = The NT Temple of God = The Body of Christ = the Bride of Christ = all those for whom Christ died and purchased with His blood.

My authority is not in man, but rather in the Word of God.
Let's go to the Scripture.
In the Book of Acts Paul comes to Miletus. He couldn't go all the way to Ephesus so he calls for the elders or pastors to meet him there. They are the elders of the local church at Miletus.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 20:17 But from Miletus having sent to Ephesus, he called over [to him] the elders of the assembly.[/FONT]

And then he says to them:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.[/FONT]

Christ shed his blood for the assembly at Ephesus, not for any mystical universal non-existing, "church" so-called, but for an actual assembly that historically existed in time and place.
As he did for the assembly in Ephesus so he does for every local assembly that has Christs as its foundation and the Bible as its rule of faith.

 

[Protestant]

Christ shed his blood for the assembly at Ephesus, not for any mystical universal non-existing, "church" so-called, but for an actual assembly that historically existed in time and place.
As he did for the assembly in Ephesus so he does for every local assembly that has Christs as its foundation and the Bible as its rule of faith.

Please continue reading chapter 20:

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

To the best of your understanding did Christ shed His blood for the grievous wolves who were about to devour the Ephesian flock?

And did Christ shed His blood for those men who were to arise as Ephesian elders, whose perverse teachings were contrary to the Word of God?

Also, in your view is the English noun ‘church’ no longer a viable scriptural classification of Christians ‘called out’ by God since you have recently discarded it from your vocabulary?

And lastly, should Christians disregard the Confession of Southern Baptists as well as the testimony of the much respected Baptist C. H. Spurgeon and follow your eccentric ecclesiology instead?

I thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies.