Is Bush the Antichrist?

During the eight years of Clinton's presidency, I was repeatedly asked, "Chuck, do you think Bill Clinton is the antichrist?" (Of course, I answered no.) Therefore, it is more than interesting to me that since G.W. Bush became president no one has asked if I thought he was the antichrist. Not one single person! Instead, many people attribute to Bush god-like qualities, which actually makes him a better candidate than Clinton was.

You see, one of the chief characteristics of the coming antichrist is that he appears "as an angel of light." Therefore, an obvious reprobate such as Bill Clinton is immediately disqualified. The antichrist, by very definition, is a master deceiver. He must be someone who appears as good and benevolent. The bite is in his tail not in his tongue. In reality, Bush's angelic persona makes him much more dangerous than bad boy Billy.

For example, while Clinton was in the process of appointing numerous homosexual activists to his administration, copious letters from Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy flooded America's Christian community. Appeals for protest and resistance were heard from pulpits throughout the country. A massive media campaign began against Clinton.

Today, however, President Bush is in the process of copying Clinton's numerous appointments of open homosexuals to high positions of government, but there are no letters, no warnings from pulpits, and no media campaigns opposing it. Just the opposite. Bush is being defended, lauded, and glorified for everything he does, no matter how unconstitutional or unscriptural it might be.

When Clinton only talked of legalizing embryonic stem cell research, he was castigated and condemned. Bush actually made the procedure legal, and yet, he was praised and honored. Clinton was denigrated when he tried to convince Israel to give up land for peace. Now, Bush is in the process of actually trying to create an independent Palestinian state for Israel's enemies (with Jerusalem as its capital, no less), yet continues to receive glowing adulation. If Clinton even suggested that America's immigration laws might need to be liberalized, he was denounced in the harshest terms; but Bush can actually grant limited amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and there is not the faintest whisper of protest.

Do you recall how Clinton was criticized for the "low lifes" he invited to the White House? Well, Bush recently invited wild man rocker, Ozzie Osbourne, to the White House. Have you heard any notable Christian leader take Bush to task for that?

You remember Ozzie Osbourne, don't you? He is the former front man for the heavy metal band, Black Sabbath. He is famous for stage antics such as biting the heads off birds and bats. His abuse of drugs and alcohol are also well known. Furthermore, Ozzie Osbourne desecrated The Alamo by pissing all over it. In spite of this, George W. Bush is said to be one of Osbourne's biggest fans. As such, Osbourne was recently invited to the White House for dinner. Have you heard any criticism of Bush for this?

Obviously, I do not believe President Bush is the antichrist any more than I believed Bill Clinton was. However, I do believe that Bush possesses more deceptive qualities than Clinton did and, therefore, is more dangerous. I also now understand more clearly how even "the elect" can be deceived. Bush' s acceptance by the overwhelming majority of Christian people proves the country is ready for the antichrist, whoever he is.

What I pointed out was the fact that it's wrong to call another freeper names and throw out insults that are devoid of any intelligence. If you want to disagree with someone, you can do so by discussing the content and not declaring someone else a nutcase.

I think I see the problem now.

Trace wasn't insulting Matthew Viti. She was referring to Chuck Baldwin, who wrote the silly thing. Matthew Viti, Chuck Baldwin ---> different people. I am reasonably sure of this.

As for the title, attention-grabbing titles that don't quite represent the content are used on FR many times per day.

I'm one of those thread-police types that always squawks when people supply their own titles to published articles. Matthew Viti didn't do that. The title is Chuck Baldwin's original (you can check that by clinking on the link and scrolling down through a long column of Bush This, Bush That, Bush Bad until you hit April of last year). That's the title the author chose himself, so the author can take the heat for it.

"The "all-already-fulfilled" school is a house of cards"

I agree --- so if that's what you got out of what I posted, you mis-read it. You may want to read the piece more carefully.

What you have described is called, Pantelism / Neo-Hymenaeanism / Hyper-preterism (full or exhaustive preterism).

Neo-Hymenaeanism (hyper-preterism) is both erroneous and heretical. It repudiates and rejects the teaching which Paul labels "our hope" (Acts 23:6). It denies the future coming of Christ to raise all men from the dead and judge them in the body.

As far as The "binding of Satan" goes, Revelation 20 does not merely say that Satan is bound.

It does not say that Satan is bound that he should not be able to deceive anymore.

It does not say that Satan is bound that he should not deceive anyone anymore.

It does not say that Satan is bound that he should not deceive any Gentiles anymore.

As a matter of fact, it does not even say that Satan is bound that he should not deceive any nations anymore.

During this Church Age (aka "The Times of the Gentiles"), Satan cannot deceive the nations-as-Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Notice this:

"Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you (Jews) first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, WE TURN TO THE GENTILES.

For so the Lord has commanded us: "I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth."

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And *as many as* had been appointed to eternal life believed." [Acts 13:46-48]

The strong man (Satan) is PRESENTLY under the *particular* narrow binding of Matthew 12:29, and the house of the strong man is currently being plundered of the (Gentile) vessels therein.

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the [Gentile] nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season [to again have a free rein to deceive the Gentile nations again]."

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all [Gentile] nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Matt. 12 / Rev. 20]

In Acts 26:18 Paul is sent to the Gentiles "to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and *from the power of Satan* unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me (Christ)."

Rev 10:7 "...then is finished the mystery of God, according to the good tidings which he declared to his servants the prophets." (The word "finished" is from the same greek word [telew] that is used in Rev 20 in connection with the 1000 years.) God will accomplish his glorious purpose in Christ, which is what Rev. 20 sums up so powerfully.

Matter of fact - Rev. 20:4-6 define what the binding is about.

There is a causal relationship between vs 3 and 4. Vs 1-3 see all the nations as spiritually dead and deceived by Satan.

His binding prevents him from deceiving the nations.

And vss 4-6, in defining Satan's binding, make clear that not all are moved from under his binding. Some remain deceived and spiritually dead. His binding is not absolute.

We have been given no date-setting foreknowledge as to how long the "Millenium of God's Patience" (II Peter 3) is going to last in terms of earthly years. Christ's return could *theoretically* be a million years away.

I knew that so many would defend Bush about this - he did, no he didn't, he did, but someone else brought him - he didn't come to the WH. I don't know and yes it would matter if he did - but since I don't know and it seems not too many others know from the posts.

My post was concerning the Ozbourne's. It seems they 'have great family values", and I could not imagine why anyone would watch that trash and pollute their homes and minds with it.

You know President Bush has people on here that just go ballistic at the faintest criticism - it makes Clinton's Intimidation Squard look like pikers.

You need to get a grip - I said nothing about Bush, except I didn't know. Absolutely nothing. NOw why would you feel you had to attack when I had said nothing. Get a grip - I didn't insult your mother - or anyone else -e xcept the Ozbournes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.