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.