King of Kings

Persepolis 1971: Party site

Knowledge Network: The Greatest Party on Earth

Watch Until March 30, 12:00am

Cited

In 1971, the Shah of Iran celebrated 2,500 years of the Persian monarchy by throwing the greatest party known in history. Every party leaves a few hangovers. This one left a country reeling, never to recover.

Another interesting Knowledge Network documentary from Storyville. In my theological opinion, these films often highlight the depravity of humanity in a notable historical context. These films present at times a fascinating and disturbing documentary series on human nature.

This film being a documentary on the a great party thrown by the Shah of Iran at Persepolis in 1971, in celebration of 2500 years of the Persian monarchy. The story is connected to the eventual Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The Shah embraced the title King of Kings, which caught my attention.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Shāh, Old Persian Khshayathiya, title of the kings of Iran, or Persia. When compounded as shāhanshāh, it denotes “king of kings,” or emperor, a title adopted by the 20th-century Pahlavi dynasty in evocation of the ancient Persian “king of kings,” Cyrus II the Great (reigned 559–c. 529 BC). Another related title or form of address is padshāh, or “lord king.” The title shāh was also used in Afghanistan until the overturn of the monarchy in 1973 and has been used by rulers and princelings in other countries of central and southern Asia. Sometimes, as a part of a name, shāh was used by hereditary governors and heads of Ṣūfī orders. The son of a shāh is called a shāhzāda (literally “shāh son”). See also shabunder. 

Iran Chamber Society: February 28 2018

Cited

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Arya Mehr and Shahanshah (King of the Kings) Mohammad Reza Shah & Empress FarahMohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-80), king of Iran (1941-1979), was born in Tehran on October 26, 1919, the eldest son of Reza Shah. He completed his primary school in Switzerland. He returned to Iran in 1935, and enrolled in a Tehran military school, from which he graduated in 1938. In 1939 he married a sister of Faroq I, king of Egypt. The couple divorced in 1949. Mohammad Reza married two more times, in 1950 with Soraya Esfandiari and 1959 with Farah Diba.

This finite and eliminated from the world scene, King of Kings, contrasted with the biblical King of Kings.

Got Questions

Cited

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords?" 

Answer: The phrase king of kings is used in Scripture six times. Once, the title is applied to God the Father (1 Timothy 6:15), and twice to the Lord Jesus (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The other three (Ezra 7:12; Ezekiel 26:7; Daniel 2:37) refer to either Artaxerxes or Nebuchadnezzar, kings who used the phrase to express their absolute sovereignty over their respective realms (Persia and Babylon). The phrase lord of lords is used by itself in Scripture twice and refers to God the Father (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:3). 

In Revelation 19:16 Jesus is given the full title “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” (Revelation 17:14 switches it: “Lord of lords and King of kings”). The title indicates someone who has the power to exercise absolute dominion over all His realm. In the case of the Lord Jesus, the realm is all of creation. In John’s vision, Jesus is returning to judge the world and establish His earthly kingdom, as He predicted in Mark 13:26. 

When Jesus is called “King of kings and Lord of lords,” it means that, in the end, all other rulers will be conquered or abolished, and He alone will reign supreme as King and Lord of all the earth. There is no power, no king, and no lord who can oppose Him and win. There are myriad references to this absolute rule of Jesus and His preeminence over other rulers throughout Scripture.

Mounce reasons with 17: 14 that the Lamb will overcome adversaries and is therefore Lord of lords and King of kings. (318). This is a demonstration of the sovereignty of God.

In 19: 16: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, emphasizes the universal sovereignty of Jesus Christ and God's eschatological victory over all enemies. (347). The antichrist and enemies will be destroyed. (348).

It could be stated that biblically the only true King of kings is God himself, and that includes God the Son, Jesus Christ.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Matthew 7:13-14 (MPhil & PhD Edits)

Through some research I found that I discussed Matthew 7: 13-14 in both of my British thesis degrees and also on this website in archives.

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus stated that the majority found their way to destruction, and a minority to life, so even with the possible truth of suffering as lesson, it appears that although lessons can be learned, that most people do not come to God through these lessons in suffering. Now, if many believers in Christ grow spiritually through pain and suffering then I suppose it worthwhile nonetheless.

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. France (2001: 146). R.T. France (2001) explains that from these verses, and the perspective of Christ, true discipleship is a minority religion. France (2001: 146). He notes that in context, the narrow way should not so much be understood to be a difficult or hard path to travel on, but rather should be viewed as a restricted path. France (2001: 147). The narrow way of Christian discipleship is restrictive, and requires a particular type of religious devotion taught further by Christ and his Apostles. France (2001: 147). Admittedly non-Christian worldviews can contain much truth.

There are many religions and religious persons in the world, but the restrictive nature of Christ’s gospel requires God to enlighten persons to what Christian tradition understands as true religion, as opposed to human attempts at religion. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom. This idea is a key aspect of sovereignty theodicy, as God’s election of some is very important in the creator overcoming the problem of evil and ultimately culminating a Kingdom.

FRANCE, R.T. (2001) Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

Universalism July 2007

A religion and a political kingdom

This book review continues...

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter Six: Divide and Conquer

On page 50, the author discusses dividing the religion of Islam from Shariah. Mr. Wallace states that Muhammad was building more than a religion; he was building a kingdom. (50).

A political kingdom. Islam is therefore far more than just religious (50), it is by nature very political.
The Shariah (51) also known as Shariah Law (my add), is made up of laws to govern a nation. (51).

Mr. Wallace, reasons, that Shariah should be opposed within the United States of America because Shariah would establish a religious law that would oppose the constitution of the United States of America (54-55).

The author raises a reasonable objection. But are Westernized, and in his case, Americanized, Muslims that left Islamic nations to immigrate to the West, in the majority, or even large minority, going to support the establishment of Shariah Law? Even if it was established, there is a very significant difference between Shariah for submitting Muslims, in a religious context and a forced Shariah for those that do not support Islam in a society. It is very difficult to view a scenario where immigrant Muslims have enough of the population in support to force and coerce Shariah Law as the law of the land.

Quora: Muslim support of Sharia

Cited

2018

The research data by PEW to back up the following 2017 statistics is found at the end of this answer under Research data. 

World Muslims who want Sharia 

Basically the straight forward answer is 69.7% (call it 70%) of the world’s Muslims want Sharia Law. That is a shocking 70% of about 1.8 billion people, which is 1.26 billion Muslims, 16.8% of the world’s population of 7.5 billion.

What do we know about Muslims World-Wide that want Sharia? 

I am going to answer that via an article in the following 

UK paper of Dec 2016 (So almost 2017) pertaining to UK Muslims that want some aspect of Sharia: (SHOCK POLL: Four in ten British Muslims want some aspect of Sharia Law enforced in UK).

Four in ten is a disturbing number, but not a majority. A large minority in the United Kingdom, but not the United States of America, that is the main focus of Mr. Wallace's text.

Poll

By MACER HALL PUBLISHED: 00:01, Fri, Dec 2, 2016 | UPDATED: 13:54, Fri, Dec 2, 2016

Forty-three per cent of followers of the religion living in the country believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea. Researchers also found "deeply worrying" levels of belief among British Muslims in conspiracy theories such as blaming the US government or “Jews" for the 9/11 terror attacks on America.
---

As I have noted previously in this review series. I will agree with Mr. Wallace that in principal, I do not philosophically support the concept of a group of people in a Western nation being ruled by their own laws. (16). In my opinion, religious rules and law should not be sanctioned by the state, but should be administered internally within the state support of freedom of religion in Western democracies.

Reasonable religious rules that is. I would not support a religion that supports a horrid practice such as human sacrifice, or is unethical.

For example,  I am a member of Northview Community Church and its second church plant, TriCity Church. If I break a rule required for membership, it is my view that for a reasonable separation of church-state, any church discipline with me should be administered via the church and not in any way by a state government. But again, I support freedom of religion via the state.

For Islam, I am opposed to state sanctioned Shariah Law, but support the right of Islam to rule internally. The modern West, unlike traditional Islam, does not have the religion-state unity and this should be maintained within Western society and law.

You'll not only lose your mind, but you'll lose your soul

Tourist Office Dublin (touristofficedublin.com)

You'll not only lose your mind, but you'll lose your soul  (Video citation).

'Sir Christopher Lee at University College Dublin, discusses rumours of his extensive occult library and black magic. You Tube, November 2011'

Amusing that the person that wrote that Mr. Lee owned 20, 000 books in regard to the occult, to some extent, may have assumed that Mr. Lee's occult based characters in films equated with Mr. Lee being obsessed with the occult. Perhaps in a way, the now late, Mr. Lee was a victim of his own acting excellence with acting roles involving the occult. Mr. Lee from this video source and some other sources online, very well may have had a Christian worldview.

A philosophical lesson here is not to assume that someone that presents a fictional worldview (s), is also embracing that fictional worldview (s) in a non-fiction context, such as the story of Mr. Lee's life. A fictional portrayal does not equate necessarily with an actual worldview in reality. Nor should it be assumed that someone that owns a few books on the occult, and may find them intellectually interesting, embraces the occult as worldview.

I own very few books on the occult, for educational purposes, as I do study religious studies and philosophy. I am by no means an expert on the occult. My friendly neighbour, Walter Thomas Franklin, gave me some of them, probably largely to get disturbing images within the texts out of his house. I neither embrace the books nor the worldview.

Interestingly, I was chatting last Sunday, with a very committed Christian brother and actor at church, that has done local church performances. He is acting in a horror film...

'Sir Christopher Lee at University College Dublin, discusses rumours of his extensive occult library and black magic. You Tube, November 2011'

Via my neighbour

MATTHEWS, RUPERT (ed.) PAUL ROLAND, KAREN FARRINGTON, LUCY DONCASTER, ANDREW HOLLAND, (2009) The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, London, Arcturus.

I John 2: 18-24: antichrists went from us

I John 2: 18-24

New American Standard Bible

18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [d]it would be shown that they all are not of us. 20 [e]But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and [f]because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the [g]Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

English Standard Version

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.[d] 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.

King James Version

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
---

The I John texts mentions the antichrist then antichrists. The commentary of R.W. Orr explains that these antichrist teachers seceded from the New Testament Christian Church, marking their apostasy from the truth. (1578). It serves as a demonstration that none of the persons actually belonged in the true Church.

From the versions listed:

NASB: 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [d]it would be shown that they all are not of us.

A friend of mine today texted me and wrote that a Christian intellectual he listens to opined that the actual end times antichrist might come from New Apostolic Reformation with its approach that assumes the continuation of apostles of prophets. My friend reasons that the movement embraces hyper-charismatic theology and manifestations.

I thought of what I had recently heard listening to I John 2, online...

If the futurist interpretation is correct, and I reason it is at least to some significant degree, the end times antichrist and not only antichrists, could arise from those that attended church within the Christian Church, as those that were never really of us. They were false, biblical Christians.

From my theological speculation, which is different than my friend's source, some type of traditional Christianity and traditional denominations seems a reasonable possibility to produce a religious side of a false Christ, the end times Antichrist. 2 Thessalonians mentions a great falling away (2: 3).

But, I admit, a new religion, without claimed Christian heritage, but a Satanic copy of sorts, is also a possibility.

With the first possibility, extreme liberal and secularized churches connected to Western, political powers in North America and Europe could possibly be part of a revitalized (Western) Roman Empire of sorts, that claims Christian religious heritage and yet denies both the Father and the Son, and therefore the Holy Spirit. These churches then energized by Satanic powers within the reign of the Antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2

New American Standard Bible

6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

On Dualism

On Dualism 

Dualism

Any system of thought which attempts to define the nature of something as composed of two distinct dualities, substances or principles. Pocket Dictionary (1999: 41).

Any view that postulates two kinds of thing (s) in common in some domain, is dualism. In contrast, where this is only one kind of thing (s), it is monistic. Blackburn (1996: 110).

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

Dualism was only mentioned once in my PhD:

Question 29: God desires that women’s sufferings be understood

Many respondents, 140 (65.7%) supported this idea while only 16 (7.5%) opposed it with a choice of ‘D/DS’. Fifty-seven (26.7%) were ‘NC’.

Gebara writes that Biblical Scripture, which emphasizes differences between male and female, has led to a ‘hierarchical dualism’ that is used to exclude women. Gebara (2002: 5). Gebara reasons evils experienced by women are often linked with the idea they are considered a second, less valuable sex. Gebara (2002: 85). Gebara’s comments demonstrate that her particular feminist views are not supported by the majority of my respondents. Gebara (2002: 2, 85). This is not to imply that many of my respondents do not support feminist theology in some regard.

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

From my Mphil:

C.S. Lewis tied in his free will concept with what he saw as the doctrine of the fall. He concluded that this concept was developed by the church fathers to counteract the heresy of Monism, that God produces effects being both good and evil, and Dualism, where two Gods existed, one good and one evil.

Statement six:

This statement stated: Absolute Dualism, a universe containing two co-eternal Gods, one good, the other evil, is Biblically permissible. Of Anglicans 2% were uncertain with this statement, while 98% disagreed with it. With Baptists 2% agreed with the statement, 2% were uncertain, and 96% disagreed with it. Scripture seems to strongly indicate that Satan and his fallen angel partners were created by God, and thus not infinite or equal to God. In Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, and Revelation 4:11, it is pointed out that God alone is the creator of all things, and as stated earlier, no being appeared to have existed with God prior to creation.

Statement seven:

This statement stated: Relative Dualism, a universe containing an eternal, infinite, good God, and a finite created Devil, is permissible within a Biblical world-view. The statement is, of course, related to the previous one, and I think this view is expressed in Scripture. Here 74% of Anglicans agreed, while 14% were not certain, with 12% disagreeing. With the Baptists, 86% agreed, 4% being not certain, and 10% being in disagreement.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1961)(1983) A Grief Observed, London, Faber and Faber.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio, Barbour and Company. 

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

Worldview, theology, philosophy, not person or persons

This book review continues...

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter Six: Divide and Conquer

Mr. Wallace explains that the religion under discussion is Islam. (45). The people are Muslims. (45). Mr. Wallace makes this distinction on his Fortress of Faith, radio program, as well. A Muslim is a submitted one, and Islam means submission, surrender. (45).

They are not the same. In other words, to intellectually, theologically, philosophically critique Islam as a false religion and false worldview, is not the same as criticizing individual Muslims, those within Islam.

The author reasons that objective arguments are required to critique Islam. (46). To set aside emotions (46) in regard to any Muslim persons and to review factually, the doctrines of Islam. (46).

God willing, I attempt to take an objective (object) as opposed to subjective (subject) matter favouring facts or feelings in regard to academia, intellectual issues, worldview, theology, philosophy.

Examples:

Subjective

'I often prefer the more landscaped British topography to the more natural Canadian topography'.

Objective

'It is documented that Canada has more total area (land and water), than does the United Kingdom'.
---

I do not embrace Islam as I do not hold to its worldview, its theology and philosophy; it is not because of my views of the ethics or morality of any Muslim or Muslims.

Worldview, theology, philosophy, not person or persons is the key is this type of academic review.
---

Recent

Black and white allusion

The Antichrist?

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

I was listening to Mr. Wallace on Fortress of Faith via KARI radio,  while driving home this week. I have not been listening to the program for a long period, so this was the first time I have heard Mr. Wallace theorize that the New Testament concept of antichrist, the man of lawlessness, and related, best
describes Islam.

I have heard this type of theory previously. I certainly respect Mr. Wallace's research into both Scripture and Islam, but to be honest, I have never found the possibility of Islam as the antichrist, very convincing.

It is plausible, but not convincing.

Eschatology can be interpreted in such as way that Kingdom of the Antichrist is simply taken in a preterest context and of the New Testament era. It can also be interpreted in a futurist context as a revitalized Roman Empire combined with a satanic, demonic version of Christianity with a false, satanic Messiah, perhaps Satan incarnate. This could be a form of Islam I suppose.

There are other interpretations, but these types are the ones I hear of and read of most often:

But, the Islamic world is presently far beyond, in power, what I would consider the four main world power blocks (Not a dogmatic order):

The United States of America
Russian Federation
Western Europe/Europe
The People's Republic of China

It does not seem to me that the Islamic world will any time soon, pass one of these blocks in political and military power. I am highly skeptical, that if there is indeed a futurist Kingdom of the Antichrist, that such a Kingdom would occur through Islam.

Antichrist July 2008

Edited

Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John.

Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).

David A. Hubbard writes that the term antichrist is found only in the Johannine letters. The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either. Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55).

The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist. The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55).

In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55). In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).

The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56). John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56).

If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system. Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254).

The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard.

To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:

Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41). Mounce explains that a major problem with this position is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient. The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context. The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44).

Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealitic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).

W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Logic versus Truth

Logic versus Truth

Slight edits for an entry on academia.edu for April 7, 2023

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And 0
= Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
--
The Truth of the Proposition

Philosopher Langer writes that in the book, so far, nothing had been mentioned in regard to the truth of a proposition. (188). An implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188). There can be false premises and a true conclusion for a valid argument, but there cannot be true premise (s) and false conclusion with validity. Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. A sound argument also has a true conclusion.

Langer explains

Brutus killed Caesar ⊃ Caesar is dead. (188). (⊃ is means the same as).

Since the implied premise is true the proposition is also true (consequent). (188). If Brutus killed Caesar ˜ ⊃ Caesar is dead (my equation using not the same), this would not change the implication that Caesar was dead. (188). Brutus did not kill Caesar; Caesar died in another way.
---

Logic versus Truth

February 13, 2018

Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189).

This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.

In many cases when a person states that a premise or argument is logical, the person means that it is true. But a premise or argument can be logical and false. Therefore, it would be more accurate in many cases to claim that a premise or argument is true and or reasonable.

L ˜ = T

Logic does not equal truth

L ˜ ⊃ T

Logic is not the sane as truth

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Why does God not remove evil? (MPhil Edit)

Thursday evening

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

PhD version: November 2011

From the MPhil thesis only degree:

J.S. Feinberg stated:

'God can remove evil if that is all He wants to do in our world. However, I will argue that God cannot remove evil without (1) contradicting other valuable things He has decided to do, (2) casting doubts on or directly contradicting the claim that He has all the attributes predicated of Him in Scripture, and/or (3) performing actions that we would neither desire nor require Him to do, because they would produce a greater evil than we already have in our world.' Feinberg (1994: 126).

I agree with the general idea in Feinberg’s quote. It is very possible that if God were to remove evil from his fallen creation, it would interfere with other valuable things needed for human development. 

Both Feinberg and McGrath indicated this could contradict things stated in Scripture--Feinberg mentioned attributes, and McGrath mentioned promises. As well, greater evils could occur if God ridded the world of certain evils at this point. I think there are certain human developments, a type of human spiritual evolution which experiences certain evils for a set period of time before complete restoration through Christ occurs. So from this idea, I would conclude that God is still omnipotent, but yet he wills the continuation of the problem of evil for the greater good, and he remains holy, without sin.

As Feinberg’s idea points out, there is definitely some logical theological reasoning for evil existing within God’s creation.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

McGRATH, ALISTER (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

The end does not justify the means

The end does not justify the means

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Five: Speak The Truth In Love

Mr. Wallace mentions the importance in defeating Islam in North America in some key areas. (39). These include (paraphrased) in the arena of the Muslim mind, in the arena of the skeptic's mind, and in the arena of the legal system. (39). Mr. Wallace suggests that those within the Christian Church should take a bold, yet loving approach:

'Truth shared with bold compassion is contagious'.  (41).

I will add that listening to Mr. Wallace's 'Fortress of Faith' radio broadcast from time to time, Mr. Wallace does take a loving approach, in boldness to people. He explains that one can have truth, but if it is stated with immoral methods, it loses levels of potency and validity. (41).

I agree when Mr. Wallace states:

'The pragmatist who believes the end justifies the means is often an immoral man.'  (41).

A key is therefore to present the truth and the gospel truth in love. To love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 23, Mark 12, Luke 10). The gospel of John mentions love within the Church as a command:

John 13:34-35

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Further from his epistles

1 John 4:20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

'Speaking the truth in Love is essential'. (44).

Blackburn describes consequentialism which relates to ideas of the end justifying the means.

The view that the value of an action derives entirely from the value of its consequences. This contrasts both with the view that the value of an action may derive from the value of the kind of character whose action is (courageous, just, temperate, etc.), and with the view that its value may be intrinsic, belonging to to it as simply as truth-telling, promise-keeping, etc. (77).

The former would be virtue ethics and the latter would be deontological ethics. (77).

Consequentialism is not a New Testament ethic.

Deontology based on concepts of human duty, or what is right, or rights. (100). Virtue ethics takes the notion of virtue within ethics as primary. (394). This as opposed to views which look for a pragmatic good (paraphrased). (394).

New Testament Christian ethics and morality have the most in common here with virtue ethics and also to a lesser extent, deontological ethics. The Christian should always seek virtue, and what is right, but human duty and human rights with deontological ethics are not always as important as human virtue. For example, one has the legal right to be an adulterer, but virtue should prohibit it. Deontology may at times be more concerned with 'moral norms' whereas a Christian ethic, equated with some type of virtue ethic, views ethics as eternally being derived from the eternal, infinite God.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

John Calvin on the forge of idols: Problems of evil and suffering

Travel Twitter, Etretat, France

John Calvin on the forge of idols

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.

Cited

1.11.8

'Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols.'

It has also been translated as:

'Man's nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols....' (And like).

In other words, idolatry is a universal human problem and a continual human problem.

From Browning:

In the Hebrew Bible context, idolatry involved the cult of worshipping a statue of a god or goddess. (181).

Exodus 20:4-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 “You shall not make for yourself [a]an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Footnotes:

Exodus 20:4 Or a graven image

The second commandment.

Browning reasons that in the New Testament context the Apostle Paul reminds readers in 1 Corinthians 10, against idolatry in the form of possible 'civil ceremony.' (181). From 1 Corinthians 8, these idols are false entities, 'so-called gods' (181). Browning then mentions Colossians 3: 5 in the context of idolatry used in a metaphorical context (181) as in evil desires:

Colossians 3:5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Therefore [a]consider the members of your earthly body as dead to [b]immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which [c]amounts to idolatry.

Footnotes:

Colossians 3:5 Lit put to death the members which are upon the earth
Colossians 3:5 Lit fornication
Colossians 3:5 Lit is

The Calvin quote is of a metaphorical usage. It is profoundly true.

The metaphorical use is often the critique idolatry receives within the evangelical church. I am in agreement that this critique is often the correct one. I agree with the warnings from the Apostle Paul and John Calvin.

But I would caution that at times problems of evil and suffering are significantly negated when actual human needs, that perhaps God is not meeting at the time, within his holy and good plans, and purposes, are negated by the evangelical presenter. This in order to provide an evangelical Christian apologetic for God, in regard to problems of evil and suffering.

God meets human needs within his plans and purposes. This does not mean for example, that the blind person, does not actually need to have restored vision. Restored vision is more than simply a desire, it is a need based on human, ontological nature.

(Yes, I have had to counter an evangelical in church ministry, that made this type of argument)

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.

Consenting disciples

Tour Radar.com: South of France

From the New American Standard 

Matthew 28:18-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

Baptism class

TriCity Church states (paraphrased) in the Baptism Class book cited below, that proposed baptized persons (for membership) are asked to discuss their testimony with elders and the church. (22).

In the past, I have been a member of a Presbyterian Church of America (Canada) and am in basic agreement with core doctrines and therefore could be a member. But, in regard to infant baptism, having taken membership class in the PCA years ago, I realize that those in leadership view infants and young children baptized as disciples.

I can grant this premise, in a sense and context, that infants and small children would be disciples in training, or possible future disciples, or like.

The book counters the claim of those that support infant baptism from Colossians 2: 11-12.

That being that Old Testament circumcision is replaced by New Testament baptism. (26). The book states that in contrast Colossians in mentioning that there is circumcision of the heart for those that are baptized in Christ. (26).

Colossians 2:11-12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The book's interpretation of a circumcision without hands, as spiritual, is more reasonable and straightforward than a speculative theology of infant baptism, also known as paedobaptism, or pedobaptism.

At the recent TriCity Church, Baptism Class, which I was asked to assist with by the overseer, as I am a baptized Mennonite Brethren and of course a Christian theologian; I coined this idea that unlike those that practice infant baptism to bring children into the new covenant (Is this required in light of God's election of persons? Ephesians 1-2), our church is seeking:

Consenting disciples 

(I realize that some churches practice infant and believer's baptism.)

These are those that can discuss their testimony with the elders and the church.

This theology fits better with a believer's baptism view.

I have also received infant baptism within the United Church of Canada.

'Baptism Class' (2014), TriCity Church, Port Coquitlam.

Baptism November 2016

Brief on marketing of Reformed churches (PhD Edit)

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

From the PhD

Reformed concepts are often not being taught adequately within the evangelical church. Reformed theology is likely often watered down in many cases as Reformed churches are marketing themselves as primarily evangelical as opposed to primarily Reformed. Church attendance can be so low in some cases that it is more marketable to avoid teaching and dealing with controversial Reformed concepts.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

Theology cannot abolish suffering (MPhil Edit)

Bangor University: My MPhil (Never set foot)

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

From MPhil

'Theology may not be able to abolish suffering - but it can allow that suffering to be seen in a new light. Although the way things are cannot be changed, the way in which people view them and respond to them can. The theologian can reassure believers concerning the validity of their faith and help them to apply it to the riddles of life. For faith makes a vital difference to the way we see and experience things. Just as the sun shines upon the righteous and the unrighteous, so both the believer and the non-believer suffer and die. The vital difference lies in the way in which they experience and understand what is happening to them.' McGrath (1992: 8).

McGRATH, A. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, A. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.
---

Bangor University

Academic knowledge from theology, bible, philosophy of religion, psychology, as well as pastoral counselling, cannot abolish suffering (all suffering, some things can be solved), but it can explain it to some extent, and hopefully when in Jesus Christ and the gospel, provide some peace based in historical, religious scripture.

Salt and light (How much salt?)

Fortress of Faith

I was listening to Mr. Wallace on KARI radio last evening, driving from work to bible study, and he had some interesting perspectives on Islamic objections to Christianity. Mr. Wallace uses the Scripture well. It is a shame his program is only approximately fifteen minutes long.

Salt and light (How much salt?) 

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Four: Taking A Stand

In discussing Salt and Light on page 36, Mr. Wallace agrees that this idea does include evangelizing the lost. (36). Salt preserves and purifies, while the light reveals and exposes, (36). The author therefore reasons that when evil becomes apparent, the Church is to expose it as evil. (36). Being salt and light is exposing evil and purifying things from it.

Of course I worked on theodicy and the problem of evil from 1999 to 2010 with British degrees, and continue on this website, please see website archives on the right panel.

My add:

Matthew 5: 13-16 from New American Standard Bible

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how [a]can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a [b]hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a [c]basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Footnotes:

Matthew 5:13 Lit will
Matthew 5:14 Or mountain
Matthew 5:15 Or peck-measure

In principle, I agree with this theology from Mr. Wallace. But there is an important matters of degrees.

There is a cultural difference between the United States and Canada/Europe on this issue. Mr. Wallace takes a common American, evangelical view indicating that Christians should be involved in politics. A heavy political involvement seems implied. I do not have a disagreement with Christians being involved in politics, but in general, American evangelical Christianity is much more politicized than is Canadian and European Christianity.

I realize that many American evangelicals would reason that Canadian and European Christians are too weak politically. I can grant that this is true at points, but there are other ways of looking at the issue.

Clearly, the New Testament Church was much less politicized than modern American, evangelical Christianity.  I am not accusing Mr. Wallace of this as he seems balanced, but many modern American, evangelical ministries appear to be holding on, for dear life, to the political power of the Christian, evangelical church. This political power for these ministries seems comparable in importance to preaching the New Testament gospel message.

In the New Testament, the clear priority was preaching the gospel as opposed to gaining political power and freedom of religion within the Roman Empire. I see a view closer to the New Testament model being followed by the Mennonite Brethren denomination, that I happen to be baptized in and am a member of, although admittedly, I am of the Reformed tradition as opposed to a traditional Mennonite tradition.

The Mennonite Brethren are not apolitical, I have heard the topics of abortion, homosexuality, sexual sin, materialism, Trinity Western University and the rights of Christian academia, for example, mentioned in sermons, but the Mennonite Brethren are not part of any religious right in Canada seeking to gain influence and power in Canada.

In other words, there is no hint of desires for theonomy (God's law) or theocracy (God's rule in this present fallen realm) in typical, modern, Mennonite Brethren theology, but there often is within American evangelical Christianity.

Instead, the Kingdom of God is not of this present realm (John 18).

I would agree with many American evangelicals that there are sell-outs claiming to be Christian Churches in Canada and Europe, but there are also many of those types of churches in the United States of America.

Yes, I definitely and definitively desire freedom of religion for myself and for religious freedom to remain in the Western world. I will be involved politically at times. But that is tempered by the New Testament priority to preach and teach the gospel message.