• Australis13@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 days ago

    This. Trump literally fits the description of an “antichrist” (lowercase; one of a type) and many of the traits of the definite article (the specific Antichrist) described in the Bible.

    But then they’re not expecting to be the ones deceived by an antichrist.

    • saimen@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even if he’s the antichrist, it’s still God’s plan by definition of the term “God” literally. The only question is if God exists or not. Or for me the question rather is if God’s existence matters or not.

      • Australis13@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’d suggest it depends on whether one assumes we have free will or not.

        My understanding of the Bible is that humanity has free will and so there are lots of things that happen that technically aren’t God’s will or plan (e.g. John 3:16 is pretty well known as mentioning God not wanting anyone to perish but for everyone to have eternal life, but then there’s also the Great White Throne Judgement in Revelation where there are definitely some who are cast into the Lake of Fire - the second death). There’s a good argument to be made as well for the prophetic parts of the Bible not being “God’s will” but simply the result of Him being outside time and space and hence knowing what the result of humanity’s free will will be.

        So no, I don’t think the Antichrist is part of God’s plan per se; rather, God knows there will be an Antichrist and that’s given as a warning so people 1) aren’t deceived by him and 2) know that God can handle him (in Revelation it ends badly for the Antichrist).

        • potoooooooo ☑️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Romans 9 would like a word:

          13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

          14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

          15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

          16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

          17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

          18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

          19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

          20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

          21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

        • saimen@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Makes sense somehow but then God isn’t omnipotent and/or all loving so looks like a contradiction to me. Or maybe he just gave up on humanity?

          • Australis13@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I guess that depends on how you define those terms - being omnipotent wouldn’t necessarily require the exercise of that power, whilst “all-loving” would depend on whether you consider allowing people free will and hence the ability to reject God to be loving or not.