# Pope as Antichrist



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Jan 13, 2020)

Inspired by @W.C. Dean thread that has a side discussion regarding the Pope as Antichrist. 

For a long time I believed that the idea of the Pope being Antichrist held by many Reformers/Puritans/Covenanters was due to their own experiences in their own time. However, due to Scriptural evidence I am now about 75% convinced that the Pope is indeed the Antichrist. 

What say ye?


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jan 13, 2020)

Before someone mentions it: this topic, like others, has been talked to death. I'm sure some will post some threads. To put in my thoughts however (I can't really argue well for it, I'm just learning about it), I do believe the Papacy is the fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 7-9 of the little horn that arose out of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

The Puritans were children of their age and fallible. But, if there was ever a title or role which fit the description of Antichrist, it is the Papacy. There are many Antichrists, the Pope being one, and in the End will come the final Antichrist.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 14, 2020)

As I have grown more familiar with Rome's doctrine and history, I have come to think the Pope is quite obviously the Antichrist, today no less than five centuries ago.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

Someone was telling me the other day about the missionary work in the early days of New Zealand. How it started with Protestants going out to various places and teaching the Maoris. They taught them the need for repentance and of true conversion and were very careful about who they admitted to church membership. But then the Papists came along and they would tell the Maoris that all that wasn't necessary, that they could continue living their old lifestyle and still be a Christian. The Papists basically bribed them into joinging with them.

It struck me that that was a stark example of the nature of the Antichrist: wherever the true religion goes, it's not long before the the fraudulent, the Anti-Christian counterfeit, shows up and starts opposing the Gospel. All non-Christian religions are at enmity with Christ and Christianity. But Romanism is the Anti-Christian religion, and the Pope the Antichrist, because it sets itself up as the true church, as the true representative of Christ, and yet is, in the excellent old phrase, the masterpiece of Satan. How it has deceived millions into believing they were followers of Christ when really they were followers of Satan. Satan is behind all other non-Christian religions, of course, but in Romanism he presents himself as an angel of light.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ADKing (Jan 14, 2020)

One of my favorite resources to plug on this issue... Francis Turretin's 7th Disputation: "Whether it Can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist" (spoiler alert---yes).

https://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/catalogue/turretin.pdf

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jan 14, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The Puritans were children of their age and fallible. But, if there was ever a title or role which fit the description of Antichrist, it is the Papacy. There are many Antichrists, the Pope being one, and in the End will come the final Antichrist.



Thank you for actually saying why you disagree. It seems common for those to disagree to not actually give a reason beyond the Puritans were just products of their time. I understand the futurist position, so thank you for explaining.

As for being children of their time, I agree. And we should be too. Papal doctrine has gotten worse since their time.


----------



## timfost (Jan 14, 2020)

I think it's clear that the pope is _an_ antichrist. My fear is that those who say that he is _the_ Antichrist may be surprised one day when they have been looking at the wrong place the whole time. The Pope is certainly in the Antichrist radar (so to speak), but my scope is not zeroed in on him alone as the one who can claim the definite article. We should watch our backs!

I don't have the time or desire to debate the issue, I'm only providing a reason for my vote.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

My reasons for no.

1) Historicism has to continually rewrite their schema. If you were in the year 1630 and you were going to place the entirety of church history within the book of Revelation, it would look different than it would in 1830 or 1970.

2) If the Pope is the "man of sin in the temple of God," then we have to conclude that Rome is the temple of God. That then changes what you mean about baptism and who is in the (in)visible church.

3) If applied to Matthew 24, especially verse 15, then this means the Great Tribulation spans the entire church age, which is bizarre. Put more modestly, they could see the event as happening in AD 70. So when Titus entered the temple, being the abomination of desolation, that caused the Great Tribulation. A believer suffering persecution today isn't suffering because of Titus's actions, yet that's what the exegesis demands. 

3.1) This means that the church age is one of unprecedented persecution, yet this doesn't seem correct.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 14, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> I have come to think the Pope is quite obviously the Antichrist, today no less than five centuries ago.



And remember. It is likely that we ain't seen anything yet. What and if in the future we see a deadly wound healed?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 14, 2020)

Of the passages below, all describe THE antichrist. The antichrist fits every single description below, not some and not most but all. There's only one that fits that description and that is the papacy. 


Daniel 7:8, 23 - Leads a nation, King or series of kings.
Daniel 7:8 - Speaks pompous words.
Daniel 7:23-24 - Kingdom comes out of the Roman Empire.
Daniel 7:21, 25 - Makes war against the Church.
Daniel 7:25 - Changes laws and times.
2 Th. 2:3-4 - The antichrist is a deceptive office bearer in the church. 
Mt. 24:24, 2 Th. 2:9-10 - He deceives with signs, wonders, and miracles, even many in the Church who will perish because of it. 
2 Th. 2:3 - He’s a man, a person. 
2 Th. 2:4 - He exalts himself above the church.
2 Th. 2:4, Daniel 11:35-36 - He shows himself to be God or sits in the place of God.
1 Jn 2:18 - There is one and many antichrists.
1 Jn. 2:22-23; 2 Jn 7 - Deceptive heresies are connected to him.
1 Jn 4:3 - There’s a spirit of antichrist that was in the apostolic church.
Rev. 13 - There is a connection with him between civil magistrate and the false church. 
Rev. 17:9 - He rules from 7 mountains
Rev. 17:18 - He rules over a city that reigns over the kings of the earth.
Rev. 18:9 - The nations live luxuriously with the city over which he reigns.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Of the passages below, all describe THE antichrist. The antichrist fits every single description below, not some and not most but all. There's only one that fits that description and that is the papacy.
> 
> 
> Daniel 7:8, 23 - Leads a nation, King or series of kings.
> ...



In logic, these are necessary conditions, not sufficient ones.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jan 14, 2020)

Here's why I do believe it:

Antichrist: The title is one that means in the place of, and has literally been taken on by Romans and by Popes, as they believe the Pope is the vice Christ, his embodiment on earth. An appropriate title for the Pope is our Lord God the Pope (according to the Romans)
Man of Sin: a reference to Antioch Ephinanes who set himself as a ruler of the church and changed the doctrines of God into idolatry.
Son of Perdition: A reference to Judas Iscariot, who pretends to be a friend of Christ but instead betrays him and sells him.
Exalteth himself in the temple: I see what some have said about the temple of the Pope not being the temple of God. I agree. However we can view the RCC as a sort of anti-temple, that stands in the place of the true temple, the body of Christ. The RCC is seen as the voice of Christianity in the world by many.
Against all that is called God: we are shown that all that is called god are infact the tenporal rulers of our world, as the Scriptures call them 'gods'. The Pope certainly has and still does rule over temporal rulers.

I find some of these objections interesting and I want to investigate them more, but please allow me some time to do so. I think these are reasonable objections, yet I still disagree. Everything I've said here is pulled from Reverend Todd Ruddell of Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, and I highly recommend his lectures titled: The Pope is Antichrist on sermonaudio. These are not the only reasons I affirm WCF 25.6


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Antichrist: The title is one that means in the place of, and has literally been taken on by Romans and by Popes, as they believe the Pope is the vice Christ, his embodiment on earth. An appropriate title for the Pope is our Lord God the Pope (according to the Romans)
> Man of Sin: a reference to Antioch Ephinanes who set himself as a ruler of the church and changed the doctrines of God into idolatry.
> Son of Perdition: A reference to Judas Iscariot, who pretends to be a friend of Christ but instead betrays him and sells him.
> Exalteth himself in the temple: I see what some have said about the temple of the Pope not being the temple of God. I agree. However we can view the RCC as a sort of anti-temple, that stands in the place of the true temple, the body of Christ. The RCC is seen as the voice of Christianity in the world by many.
> ...



None of these reasons are exegetical. The first one is close, but it is dangerous to build doctrines on etymology.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jan 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> None of these reasons are exegetical. The first one is close, but it is dangerous to build doctrines on etymology.



Do you mean those titles aren't scriptural? The Antichrist title is from the Apostle John and all the other titles are directly from 2nd Thessalonians. All those words and phrases are specifically used by Paul.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 14, 2020)

I think he fits the bill, but as Bunyan refers to him in PP, the papacy is such an impotent caricature at this point. He's too illegitimate and impotent to be seen in such a serious light at this point, even though the position is such an affront to the Living God. He's at best a false idol


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Do you mean those titles aren't scriptural? The Antichrist title is from the Apostle John and all the other titles are directly from 2nd Thessalonians. All those words and phrases are specifically used by Paul.



I mean you aren't making an exegetical case. You can take those Scriptural titles and apply them to many people throughout history.


----------



## ADKing (Jan 14, 2020)

Historic Protestantism has made an exegetical case out of Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, 1 John and Revelation. See, for example, Turrentin linked above. That case is certainly fair game for debate and it may be you don't find it persuasive. I think the interesting point being made about applying the names (particularly "antichrist") to the Pope is that in the case of "antichrist" it is not just that Protestants can apply it to him, he _applies it to himself_ (antichrist/vicar of Christ).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

ADKing said:


> Historic Protestantism has made an exegetical case out of Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, 1 John and Revelation. See, for example, Turrentin linked above. That case is certainly fair game for debate and it may be you don't find it persuasive. I think the interesting point being made about applying the names (particularly "antichrist") to the Pope is that in the case of "antichrist" it is not just that Protestants can apply it to him, he _applies it to himself_ (antichrist/vicar of Christ).



I understand that cases have been made. I was simply commenting above on the assertions per the titles. 

Are there any recent commentaries that argue for historicism?


----------



## ADKing (Jan 14, 2020)

The most recent commentary I am aware of from an historicist perspective was Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/leerev.pdf

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Megs (Jan 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are there any recent commentaries that argue for historicism?



Francis Nigel Lee wrote John's Revelation Unveiled, available here: http://www.historicism.net/reading.htm


----------



## Megs (Jan 14, 2020)

Grrr.... you beat me to it!


ADKing said:


> The most recent commentary I am aware of from an historicist perspective was Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/leerev.pdf


----------



## ADKing (Jan 14, 2020)

@Megs I hate it when that happens too.

In the present day, Dr. Steven Dilday has also done a lot of work on Revelation from an historicist perspective. No commentary as of yet, but he teaches an ongoing class and has numerous sermons online.

https://www.fromreformationtoreformation.com/revelation-description


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

Megs said:


> Francis Nigel Lee wrote John's Revelation Unveiled, available here: http://www.historicism.net/reading.htm



I had forgotten about Lee.


----------



## James 1689 (Jan 14, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Inspired by @W.C. Dean thread that has a side discussion regarding the Pope as Antichrist.
> 
> For a long time I believed that the idea of the Pope being Antichrist held by many Reformers/Puritans/Covenanters was due to their own experiences in their own time. However, due to Scriptural evidence I am now about 75% convinced that the Pope is indeed the Antichrist.
> 
> What say ye?


I am with you, I mean hey it is in my confession. Honestly, who better would fulfill 1 Thessalonians 1. Just saying.


----------



## Megs (Jan 14, 2020)

I should mention that in addition to Dr. Dilday, Pastor Mencarow also did a sermon series on Revelation from a historicist perspective: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....SpeakerOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse=

It's not a written commentary, but he does go verse by verse through the book and explain the historicist perspective, which may be helpful.

In addition, I know this is a controversial source, but Greg Price did several sermons touching on Revelation from a historicist perspective in his Ezra sermon series: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....SpeakerOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse= (Don't ask me why sermons on Revelation are buried under the title of Ezra, though).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

Megs said:


> It's not a written commentary, but he does go verse by verse through the book and explain the historicist perspective, which may be helpful.



I have listened to those sermons, and the ones by Price. Mencarow's are well-done. I still don't buy the exegesis but it is a good presentation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are there any recent commentaries that argue for historicism?



There is a commentary by E. S. Turnbull, a minister (probably deceased now) in Rev. Winzer's denomination, called _The_ _Radiant Light of the Revelation_ or something to that effect. I used to own it but sold it about 15 years ago without reading it. It was published in 2002 but is pretty hard to obtain now.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Megs (Jan 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My reasons for no.
> 
> 1) Historicism has to continually rewrite their schema. If you were in the year 1630 and you were going to place the entirety of church history within the book of Revelation, it would look different than it would in 1830 or 1970.



Here is an interesting path to take:

In "Biblical Predictions not Preterist but Historicist...," Francis Nigel Lee cites sources from early church history showing that the early church knew the Roman Empire was going to fall and that Antichrist would arise after that happened. The sources were clearly anticipating something yet future to them and not an imminent fulfillment of all of the Book of Revelation: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/biblicalpredictions.pdf

Then, during and after the Reformation, opinion seemed to crystallize around the conclusion that the Papacy was the prophesied Antichrist. This is from a SDA source, but the chart is helpful for illustrating this point: https://www.remnantofgod.org/4fathers.htm. Again, these sources as I understand them were not claiming everything would be imminently wrapped up in their times.

I am no expert in this area, but the more "recent" sources I have read show that the downfall of Antichrist wasn't expected anytime before 2000 A.D. at the earliest (as claimed in Robert Fleming Jr.'s _The Rise and Fall of the Papacy, 1701, _which contains one of my favourite quotes: “If they ask, But when will the tide turn for the Protestant Church? I answer, When they turn more universally to God, and no sooner.”).

Here is one source claiming it couldn't be earlier than 2015 A.D.: https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2019/12/2015-at-earliest.html

And Adam Clarke, in 1825, also re 2015: https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2014/12/2015-or-thereabout.html and also here: https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-identity-of-antichrist-and-year-2015.html

Incidentally, the Brexit vote and Trump's election happened around then, which I have seen news articles referring to as part of the downfall of the current New World Order so it could all come together as the historicists claimed it would.

The downfall of Antichrist relates to the 1260 years, which seems to have multiple fulfillments in history. For instance:

70 A.D. (Destruction of Jerusalem) to 1330 (Birth of Wycliffe, the morning star of the Reformation)

257 A.D. (Rome declared the head of the church) to 1517 (Luther starts the Reformation)

529 (Justinian Code gave political and legal power to Rome) to 1789-93 (French Revolution ends the political power of the Papacy)

755 (temporal power given to the Pope) to 2015 (per above-mentioned source), etc.

So, while Historicists may quibble on the details, I don't think their schemes are vastly all over the place so as to discredit the interpretation in the main (at least from what I've read/listened to). 

At the same time, though, I have seen numerous Futurists schemes put forth (Pat Robertson didn't have a rapture starting things off in his book but the Left Behind series does, etc.) and if I recall correctly, Preterists have some major differences of opinion too, such as whether Revelation is all about Jerusalem or about Jerusalem and Rome and which parts refer to which and so on and so forth. The point I'm making is that each camp operates within a certain paradigm but the details within each differ depending on the author. If historicists can be accused of rewriting their schema as history marches on, it seems like the same criticism could be applied to other views as none of them are entirely nailed down and agreed upon by all within their respective camps. If none of the above are correct, that would seem to leave idealism, but I haven't yet been convinced of it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 15, 2020)

Sorry for getting a little (but not totally) off topic but I am constantly challenged by this statement by John Newton.

“I have read of many wicked popes, but the worst pope I ever met is Pope Self.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

Megs said:


> If historicists can be accused of rewriting their schema as history marches on, it seems like the same criticism could be applied to other views as none of them are entirely nailed down and agreed upon by all within their respective camps. If none of the above are correct, that would seem to leave idealism, but I haven't yet been convinced of it.



That is true, and I agree that idealism is incorrect. But if historicists are committed to the day-year hermeneutic, then they necessarily have to rewrite and update their schema as church history progresses (if only because more years have been added).

True, futurists do silly things on time tables, but early futurists didn't. Since they believed in an "any moment rapture," there was no point to come up with "what happens next."


----------



## Megs (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is true, and I agree that idealism is incorrect. But if historicists are committed to the day-year hermeneutic, then they necessarily have to rewrite and update their schema as church history progresses (if only because more years have been added).



Can you elaborate on this for me? 

As I understand it, the day-year principle relates to how to understand the 1260 days, time times and half a time, etc. phraseology. I'm confused as to how that necessitates rewriting anything. For instance, F.N. Lee has a chart on historicim.net with his view of the 1260 years having ended with Wycliffe: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/Prophetic Chart.pdf. If he was correct, then everything fits together as he put it in John's Revelation Unveiled. 

The front page of historicism.net says 

"The "Time, Times and Half a time," "3 1/2 years," "1260 days", and "42 month" time period, which occurs seven times in Daniel and Revelation, is understood by Historicists to be fulfilled in history."​
I'm probably missing something since it's been a long time since I waded through all this stuff (I've been trying to get through a Brakel's commentary, but it's taking me literally years to do so due to time and health constraints). Is there another day-year timeline given in the scriptures that comes into play also? If the timeline is understood as being fulfilled in history, where is the need to rewrite anything? Per F.N. Lee, we would be in the time of the sixth-seventh vial at present and still expecting more to come. It seems to me that, if historicism is correct, then the understanding of scripture would become clearer as time goes on. But I'm not seeing wholesale rewriting of any schema going on so I am very interested in learning more about this.

Thanks for your help and interaction on this!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

Megs said:


> As I understand it, the day-year principle relates to how to understand the 1260 days, time times and half a time, etc. phraseology. I'm confused as to how that necessitates rewriting anything. For instance, F.N. Lee has a chart on historicim.net with his view of the 1260 years having ended with Wycliffe:



Lee's chart wouldn't have worked for anybody who lived before the time of Wyclif.

The main problem, though, is that it isn't exegesis. It is reading church history to see who fits where.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 15, 2020)

Megs said:


> Can you elaborate on this for me?
> 
> As I understand it, the day-year principle relates to how to understand the 1260 days, time times and half a time, etc. phraseology. I'm confused as to how that necessitates rewriting anything. For instance, F.N. Lee has a chart on historicim.net with his view of the 1260 years having ended with Wycliffe: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/Prophetic Chart.pdf. If he was correct, then everything fits together as he put it in John's Revelation Unveiled.
> 
> ...


Hi Megs,
The larger challenge is the complexity of interpreting Biblical prophecy, as we can see by surveying prophecies already fulfilled. Some fulfillments are not as literal as you might expect. What exactly is the timespan for the 70 year exile that Jeremiah anticipates in Jeremiah 25:11-12? Does it begin in 586, when God devotes his own land to destruction (v.9)? End with the destruction of Babylon in 538 BC, per v.12, and as Daniel seems to think in Daniel 9? If so how is the seventy year clock still running in 520 BC (see Zech 1:12)? How is it we know that seventy times seven is hyperbolic in Genesis 4 and Matt 18:22, but want to start calculating dates from the seventy weeks in Daniel 9 (another date that only yields fruit by artificial measures)? On the other, hand it's not as if the idealists have it all their own way: Daniel 11 predicts with remarkable precision a whole series of events up until the 160's BC. If you were living in those days, would you not have been convinced that Antiochus Epiphanes was THE little horn and the end of history was upon you?

My point is that the fulfillment of future prophecy is hard to predict (see Num 12:6-8), and those who do so with great confidence are often wrong. Biblical prophecy will be fulfilled, and sometimes far more literally than we amillennial types expect, but we should expect that there will be plenty of surprises. In the meantime, it often strikes me that we completely miss the meaning of apocalyptic for its original hearers; we think we hear it saying "The end is nigh", when Daniel, at least, was being told that even if the seventy years was almost up, there was a much longer journey still to go for God's people. In the words of Churchill, it is not announcing the beginning of the end, so much as the end of the beginning, and God's persecuted people would need to endure to the end by faith through many dangers, toils and snares. It seems to me that that is a much more useful application of apocalyptic than trying to use it as a key to unlock history. Is the pope THE antichrist? Maybe. I certainly wouldn't let my guard down in that direction for a moment. He certainly ticks many of the boxes. Is it possible that history future still has more twists and turns ahead that are totally unpredictable right now, in which some new figure arises to take the pope's place? I just can't rule that out, based on my reading of Biblical prophecy.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Minh (Jan 15, 2020)

Please keep in mind that there are some Popes in history who were genuine Christians. John Calvin spoke favourably of Pope Gregory who was very opposed to the titled of the Vicar of Christ even though Roman Catholicism continues to recognize him as such. 

I have no sympathy with the fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines but I don’t think the identification of the pope as the Anti-Christ is warranted in Scripture. What if the next Pope decided to “infallibly” declare that sola fide is true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Megs (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Lee's chart wouldn't have worked for anybody who lived before the time of Wyclif.
> 
> The main problem, though, is that it isn't exegesis. It is reading church history to see who fits where.



I'm not sure of your first statement but I don't have time to look into it at the moment (though now you have me racking my brain where I read about this so I hope to make time somehow). The blessings of trying to homeschool 7 children while recovering from a bad pregnancy and birth!

I think I'm missing the full import of your criticism. It seems to me like all prophecy interacts with history to some degree. People argue that Jesus was the Messiah based on what the prophecies said and how he fulfilled the prophecies in his life in history, even if the people of his time didn't understand every nuance of the situation. So I am not understanding why it's okay to compare Messianic prophecies to history and the historical person of Christ to see how they were fulfilled but not compare eschatological prophecies to history as well (barring some clear textual indicators to help sort them out). After all, they have to be comparing history to something, ie. an exegesis, in order for their scheme to work, right? 

In Lee's article about the early church, he has 40+ pages of quotes showing that the church was expecting the downfall of Rome and something after that. I guess I'm confused as to why the church would have thought that way if prophecies weren't to be taken as having some sort of actual "literal" fulfillment in time in history. And how do we know from the text to treat eschatological passages different from Messianic ones? If adopting idealism, for instance, what is there in the text to allow someone to say Revelation is about no actual historical people or events in particular but to stop that person from concluding the same things about the Messianic prophecies? Just something that's rolling around in my head. 



iainduguid said:


> Hi Megs,
> The larger challenge is the complexity of interpreting Biblical prophecy, as we can see by surveying prophecies already fulfilled. Some fulfillments are not as literal as you might expect. What exactly is the timespan for the 70 year exile that Jeremiah anticipates in Jeremiah 25:11-12? Does it begin in 586, when God devotes his own land to destruction (v.9)? End with the destruction of Babylon in 538 BC, per v.12, and as Daniel seems to think in Daniel 9? If so how is the seventy year clock still running in 520 BC (see Zech 1:12)? How is it we know that seventy times seven is hyperbolic in Genesis 4 and Matt 18:22, but want to start calculating dates from the seventy weeks in Daniel 9 (another date that only yields fruit by artificial measures)?
> 
> On the other, hand it's not as if the idealists have it all their own way: Daniel 11 predicts with remarkable precision a whole series of events up until the 160's BC. If you were living in those days, would you not have been convinced that Antiochus Epiphanes was THE little horn and the end of history was upon you?



I can't answer every question of yours in detail right now, but I expect that exegesis would be the answer. At present, I know not if the 70 years in Jeremiah was meant to be taken literally (whether or not we fully understand its reference) or if the number was symbolic of something (like the 144,000 in Revelation) without further study. But thank you for giving me more to look into! My list of study topics grows ever longer . I'm not sure, though, that being unable to pinpoint an exact answer would mean that the prophecy wasn't about an end to a particular exile, though.

As for the little horn, I think it depends on which one you're referring to. As I understand it, the little horn in Daniel 8 is taken by historicists to be Antiochus Ephiphanes (the horn that grows out of the Grecian empire as indicated by the biblical text) whereas the little horn in Daniel 7 is taken by historicists to be the papacy (the horn that grows out of the Roman empire as also indicated by the biblical text). So there are two little horns and from what I have read, the passage on Antiochus is believed to be about him and to foreshadow the papacy, Antiochus being a type of the papal Antichrist, so to speak.

But I'm not sure that not understanding everything about a prophecy in advance of an event discredits a particular understanding of the prophecy after the fact. Didn't the disciples ask Jesus if this was the time he was going to restore the kingdom? I don't think they fully understood his mission as it happened in real time, but maybe I'm wrong about that. But now, looking back, we see things more clearly. And I wouldn't say our understanding is wrong even if the people of Jesus' time couldn't see exactly how things would play out from their perspective.

I agree that prophecy is hard to interpret and I am still a novice at understanding it all, but when I read Robert Fleming, Jr., for instance, writing about events future to him, he seems to have been able to remarkably pinpoint the times and events of the French Revolution, loss of the papal states, fall of the Ottoman empire, etc. - all based on a historicist exegesis of eschatological passages. As I read and study, I see exegesis going on (see Lee's John's Revelation Unveiled for an example), although different scholars quibble over the exact details of how it all played and will play out. From their perspective, though, it doesn't matter since it all ends up in the same place with Jesus victorious - and that's all that matters.


----------



## Megs (Jan 15, 2020)

Minh said:


> Please keep in mind that there are some Popes in history who were genuine Christians....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I don't know about this but the idea is that the papacy, ie. the papal office, is the Antichrist no matter who fills it. The papacy also grew in power and became more corrupt as time went on and Gregory knew the title being applied to him belonged to Antichrist. I don't know enough about him to say anything about his life in detail. I would be interested to know which popes are considered born again, though!

I personally do not think it is possible for a Pope to declare sola fide to be true since the church anathematized that position, but I sure would like to see a Pope truly repent and put his faith in Christ alone to save him!

I just don't see from a historicist perspective how anyone else but the papacy could have fulfilled the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, etc. What other power grew up among ten and subdued three of them? (this is assuming historicism is true because I don't know what an idealist would say).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

Megs said:


> In Lee's article about the early church, he has 40+ pages of quotes showing that the church was expecting the downfall of Rome and something after that. I guess I'm confused as to why the church would have thought that way if prophecies weren't to be taken as having some sort of actual "literal" fulfillment in time in history.



The problem with that line of argument is that it assumes that the early church knew of an institution called "The Papacy" as we know it. I deny that they did. Statements about the "fall of Rome" should be interpreted as such: Rome fell.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Jan 15, 2020)

I'm an idealist, I see types of anti-Christ throughout the church age, just as there were many types of Christ throughout the OT. That being said I believe that the Pope is an anti-Christ, but not the anti-Christ. I do see the image of the beast as the man-centered theology pushed by Rome. I see Pelagianism and this growing Charismania movement in the same light, therefore those that push those ideologies are also anti-Christs.


----------



## Megs (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem with that line of argument is that it assumes that the early church knew of an institution called "The Papacy" as we know it. I deny that they did. Statements about the "fall of Rome" should be interpreted as such: Rome fell.



Oops! I apologize if my writing was unclear. I meant that they were expecting the fall of the Roman Empire, not the papacy. They knew that an evil would arise after that fall, but they did not know exactly what form or name it would take. I don't see why they would have needed to. 

From Lee's document (bold added):

Tertullian: "Again, in the Second Epistle [II Thessalonians 2:1-7], he [Paul] addresses them with even greater earnestness. 'Now I beseech you...that you be not soon...troubled..., 'as if...the day of the Lord is at hand.... 'For that day shall not come,' unless indeed there first come a falling away...and that man of sin be revealed' – that is to say, Antichrist.... *What obstacle is there [to his being revealed], but the Roman State – the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist (upon its own ruins) *[cf. Daniel 7:7-25 & Revelation 17:8f]?"

and: "*For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole Earth...threatening dreadful woes, is retarded only by the continued existence of the Roman Empire *[cf. Second Thessalonians 2:6f]. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration."

Hippolytus: "'Behold, a Fourth Beast!' [Daniel 7:7f].... That there has arisen no other kingdom after that of the Greeks save that [Roman Empire] which stands sovereign at present [!], is manifest to all.... From it, will spring ten horns.... *We ought to look for the ten horns which are to spring from it – when the time of the Beast shall be fulfilled and the little horn which is Antichrist suddenly shall appear [*future tense!] in their midst, and righteousness shall be banished from the Earth....

Lactantius: "Rome is doomed to perish. And that, indeed, by the judgment of God; because it held His Name in hatred.... Being the enemy of righteousness, it destroyed the people who kept the truth.... The Roman Empire and name, would be 'taken away' from the World..... 

"I will show how it will come to pass. First, the [Roman] kingdom will be enlarged – and the chief power, dispersed among many and divided, will be diminished. Then, civil discords will be sown perpetually. "*Nor will there be any rest from deadly wars, until ten kings arise at the same time. They will [future tense!] divide the World – not to govern it, but to consume it.... [Then,] another king shall arise*...from an evil spirit – the overthrower and destroyer of the human race....

etc. etc. etc.

The point I was making was that the church was writing that the _Roman Empire_ would fall, that it would break up into 10 kingdoms (horns), that a kingdom would rise up among them and subdue 3 of them (papacy), etc. That all presupposes a historicist interpretation of Daniel 2 and 7, ie. that when Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that he (representing Babylon) was the head of gold, he meant it to really apply to Neb/Babylon and not just as a general principle.

At the time of the Reformation, when it became abundantly clear which side the papacy was on, the opinion crystallized around the conclusion that the papacy was indeed the little horn kingdom anticipated in the scriptures. The early church didn't know it would be called the "papacy," but the argument is that they were anticipating it or something like it to arise upon the earth.

I am confused as to why the early church would have had to have known exactly what name or form the papacy would take in the future. They had the scriptures to exegete and could look for their fulfillment, as Lee's article seems to indicate they did.

Again, I apologize for any confusion. In discussions of eschatology, it's probably best to specify whether the topic is Rome pagan or Rome papal!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

Megs said:


> that it would break up into 10 kingdoms (horns), that a kingdom would rise up among them and subdue 3 of them (papacy), etc.



That's the very thing being debated, so I am not likely to grant that as a supposition.


Megs said:


> I am confused as to why the early church would have had to have known exactly what name or form the papacy would take in the future. They had the scriptures to exegete and could look for their fulfillment, as Lee's article seems to indicate they did.



Simple. If the papacy was conceptually foreign to them (as it was), then they could not have been writing about it. All Lee's argument proves is that some fathers wrote about a coming Roman imperial threat. That's all he proves.


----------



## Minh (Jan 15, 2020)

NEXT: Is the Italian Prime Minister an Anti-Christ?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

Minh said:


> NEXT: Is the Italian Prime Minister an Anti-Christ?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Minh (Jan 15, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


>


I am just confused about identifying the real Anti-Christ throughout history. After Christ's resurrection, it was Nero. During Reformation, it was the Papacy. 20th century, Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. Now, it must be Donald Trump or Barrack Obama. 

I would still respect those who hold to this opinion nevertheless.


----------



## Megs (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the very thing being debated, so I am not likely to grant that as a supposition.
> 
> Simple. If the papacy was conceptually foreign to them (as it was), then they could not have been writing about it. All Lee's argument proves is that some fathers wrote about a coming Roman imperial threat. That's all he proves.



I don't understand your critiques and think we may be talking past each other. 

I grant that you reject the historicist hermeneutic. 

To your first comment, when Lactantius wrote of 10 future kings to come, are you saying that you reject that he believed there were 10 future kings to come (from his time)? And the same with other authors like Tertullian? I don't see how you can reject the fact that someone stated something even if you disagree with their opinion. 

To your second comment, what perceived Roman imperial threat was coming to people writing that the Empire was going to be destroyed and that 10 kingdoms would take its place? Your comment does not seem to actually address what the writers were explicitly stating. They weren't talking about imperial Rome but about what was going to come after it. So Lee wasn't writing about some people talking about some imperial Roman threat and I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from what he wrote.

Also, your point about something being conceptually foreign is unclear to me. I've heard it said that the ancient Jews did not understand that there were to be two comings of the Messiah. Yet, they wrote down scriptures talking of his two comings. So, since they did not conceive of two comings, your logic would say that they therefore did not write about Jesus and his two comings. But they did.

I consider it entirely possible that one could receive or record a prophecy or vision from the Lord without understanding its full and complete meaning. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and he didn't even remember what it was, let alone what it meant. Yet, it was about something, even if he couldn't conceive of what that was and had to have it explained to him. I personally don't see what's conceptually foreign about a prophecy stating that an empire would be destroyed and break up and then another ruler would arise from the break up but be different from what came before. That doesn't seem like a far-fetched conceptual stretch to me and simply asserting that it is so doesn't clear the issue up.

All this isn't to say that historicism is absolutely the only way to interpret scripture. I just don't see how some of your criticisms stick when one puts a historicist hat on.




Minh said:


> NEXT: Is the Italian Prime Minister an Anti-Christ?



Maybe a small-a antichrist. To be Antichrist, he would have to fit the scriptures, depending on what school of thought you work from.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

Minh said:


> I am just confused about identifying the real Anti-Christ throughout history. After Christ's resurrection, it was Nero. During Reformation, it was the Papacy. 20th century, Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. Now, it must be Donald Trump or Barrack Obama.
> 
> I would still respect those who hold to this opinion nevertheless.


A lot of peoole have been wrong, certainly. Many in the early 19th century thought Napoleon was the Antichrist, or, in the next century, Hitler.

First, we need to understand that there are many _antichrists_, but one _Antichrist_. Napoleon and Hitler, among a host of others, were indeed antichrists, but not themselves the one man of sin.

I'd say Nero was an antichrist, too, and a type, if you will, of the antichrists to follow.

It's OK to be confused about the identity of the Antichrist. There's a lot of information and different opinions to wade through here. (But just to make it simple, it's the Pope. )

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2020)

Megs said:


> Also, your point about something being conceptually foreign is unclear to me. I've heard it said that the ancient Jews did not understand that there were to be two comings of the Messiah. Yet, they wrote down scriptures talking of his two comings. So, since they did not conceive of two comings, your logic would say that they therefore did not write about Jesus and his two comings. But they did.



They were writing inspired Scripture, the fathers were not. If the fathers didn't understand that there was a papacy, they could not have written about it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2020)

Megs said:


> To your first comment, when Lactantius wrote of 10 future kings to come, are you saying that you reject that he believed there were 10 future kings to come (from his time)? And the same with other authors like Tertullian? I don't see how you can reject the fact that someone stated something even if you disagree with their opinion.



I don't reject Lactantius said that. I reject that he was speaking about the papacy.


----------



## Megs (Jan 16, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't reject Lactantius said that. I reject that he was speaking about the papacy.



We agree, then! Lactantius stated that the Roman Empire would break up into ten kingdoms, out of which would come Antichrist. That was the point of that quote. 

The question is, where did Lactantius and others get the idea from that the Roman Empire was going to break up into ten kingdoms, from which would come the Antichrist?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 17, 2020)

Megs said:


> We agree, then! Lactantius stated that the Roman Empire would break up into ten kingdoms, out of which would come Antichrist. That was the point of that quote.
> 
> The question is, where did Lactantius and others get the idea from that the Roman Empire was going to break up into ten kingdoms, from which would come the Antichrist?



Daniel, but I would add several cautions:

1) We still aren't doing Greek and Hebrew exegesis, so much of this is speculative.
2) Many Western European leaders could fit the bill.
3) I offered several substantial criticisms of historicism earlier in this thread.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 17, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 3) I offered several substantial criticisms of historicism earlier in this thread.





BayouHuguenot said:


> My reasons for no.
> 
> 1) Historicism has to continually rewrite their schema. If you were in the year 1630 and you were going to place the entirety of church history within the book of Revelation, it would look different than it would in 1830 or 1970.
> 
> ...



1. This is demonstrably untrue. If you look at the best commentaries on revelation (which are hold to historicism lol), you will see a consensus on the broad meaning of the prophecies. Protestants unanimously understood these prophecies as proves by the universal consensus upon the papacy as that antichrist predicted by the apostle Paul and the apocalypse. I would recommend our RP father Alexander McLeod’s commentary on Revelation that shows the concurrence of historicist interpretation.

2. This seems like you aren't really familiar with historicist interpretations of Revelation. For the reformation was the promised toppling of the Antichrist from his throne as prophesied in Revelation. Therefore, he no longer has to be seen as within the visible church according to historicist exegesis. And the argument becomes a moot point. 

3/3.1) Historicism is the hermeneutic which informs prophecy and applied to Matthew 24 leads to totally consistent exegesis without the straw men given in your arguments above. I'm not sure if you've read even a puritan historicist commentary on Revelation/Matthew from what I see above. If not, I recommend Durham, a’Brakel, or the following: http://quintapress.webmate.me/PDF_B...jgNLO6QriqN7nfB-mFWkmAG2o51b0OWUEyaHF5vRO__98

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 17, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> 2. This seems like you aren't really familiar with historicist interpretations of Revelation. For the reformation was the promised toppling of the Antichrist from his throne as prophesied in Revelation. Therefore, he no longer has to be seen as within the visible church according to historicist exegesis. And the argument becomes a moot point.



This is what I am talking about. Yuo are not doing exegesis. You are reading church history into the text. This is the complete reverse of what exegesis should be.

Said another way: these are assertions.


Romans922 said:


> 3/3.1) Historicism is the hermeneutic which informs prophecy and applied to Matthew 24 leads to totally consistent exegesis without the straw men given in your arguments above. I'm not sure if you've read even a puritan historicist commentary on Revelation/Matthew from what I see above. If not, I recommend Durham, a’Brakel, or the following:



You haven't demonstrated it is a straw man.

And while we can't prove the truth by counting noses, where are all the top line historicist commentaries today? Why don't we see the historicist equivalent of Beale or Mounce?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 17, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> If not, I recommend Durham, a’Brakel, or the following: http://quintapress.webmate.me/PDF_B...jgNLO6QriqN7nfB-mFWkmAG2o51b0OWUEyaHF5vRO__98



Reading the key verse (Matthew 24:21ff) right now. He says exactly what I said historicists say: the great tribulation applies to Jerusalem (p. 327; 311 of pdf text). Therefore, all of the criticisms that apply to preterism apply to this reading. 

Yet on page 332 (319 in pdf) he references the "shortening days" point to Christ's bodily return. I agree with him. The problem is that Christ's bodily return shortens the Tribulation. Dickson, however, had the tribulation starting at the Fall of Jerusalem. That is precisely the very problem I pointed out. In Dickson's reading, whether he likes it or not, he has the Tribulation spanning the church age.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 17, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is what I am talking about. Yuo are not doing exegesis. You are reading church history into the text. This is the complete reverse of what exegesis should be.



I already provided exegesis earlier in this thread. I understand you don't agree with it, that's fine. I was merely answering your assertions about historicism.


----------



## Megs (Jan 17, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Daniel, but I would add several cautions:
> 
> 2) Many Western European leaders could fit the bill.



Could they? Which Western European leaders lived during the time when the Roman Empire had split into 10 kingdoms, who had a small kingdom of their own that slowly grew into a great power, that subdued/destroyed 3 of the 10 kingdoms, and that fit the other details of the prophecies in Daniel (chapters 2 and 7 in particular) and Revelation? I know of none but the papacy/Holy Roman Empire, though I'm open to convincing that someone else was the Antichrist.

My point was that the people in Lee's article understood prophecy a certain way, in a line of thought that developed and became more specific over history. They didn't believe a "leader" was coming. They believed a kingdom was coming that would topple 3 of the 10 kingdoms into which the Roman Empire would split.

Assuming their understanding of the scriptures was correct (and it might not have been but that's not what my point is here), to Lactantius, then, there only seems to be two viable schools of thought that fit what they were writing about: Historicism and Futurism. As the line of thought developed, only one of those schools of thought fits what they wrote about and that's historicism. They were interpreting the scriptures in a certain way and saw their interpretations unfolding in history. Even if you disagree with their exegesis, my point was simply that there is a line of thought stretching back into antiquity supporting historicism.

Here is a historicist interpretation of Matthew 24 in case it is of interest to anyone: https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2014/01/fn-lee-on-matthew-23-and-24-with-added.html



BayouHuguenot said:


> Why don't we see the historicist equivalent of Beale or Mounce?



I can't answer that as I'm not a scholar, but I think F.N. Lee did a fine job laying out the historicist case in a way that a lay-person like me can understand. It's true that historicists are in the minority today, but so also are Calvinists. I don't think that has any bearing on which view is true.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2020)

Megs said:


> Could they? Which Western European leaders lived during the time when the Roman Empire had split into 10 kingdoms, who had a small kingdom of their own that slowly grew into a great power, that subdued/destroyed 3 of the 10 kingdoms, and that fit the other details of the prophecies in Daniel (chapters 2 and 7 in particular) and Revelation? I know of none but the papacy/Holy Roman Empire, though I'm open to convincing that someone else was the Antichrist.
> 
> My point was that the people in Lee's article understood prophecy a certain way, in a line of thought that developed and became more specific over history. They didn't believe a "leader" was coming. They believed a kingdom was coming that would topple 3 of the 10 kingdoms into which the Roman Empire would split.
> 
> ...



I understand what Lee is saying. I had been reading and listening to his stuff since 2005. The difficulty I have in your response is that it is a lot of assumptions and presuppositions, not hard exegesis.


----------



## Megs (Jan 18, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I understand what Lee is saying. I had been reading and listening to his stuff since 2005. The difficulty I have in your response is that it is a lot of assumptions and presuppositions, not hard exegesis.



I understand. Unfortunately, I'm not able to do a hard exegesis myself on this. I did take Hebrew in my undergrad and can read some words but that's about it. All I can do is point to commentaries and other scholarly works by people as well as look at what the Scriptures say. What eschatological works in other traditions would you consider to be hard exegesis? Perhaps if I look at them I can point to something more along the lines of what you're looking for .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2020)

Megs said:


> What eschatological works in other traditions would you consider to be hard exegesis? Perhaps if I look at them I can point to something more along the lines of what you're looking for



My main concern is when we find out what a text means, we let the text tell us what it means. Later on, church history events might inform our reading, but they cannot dictate our reading.

In terms of length and price, the most accessible would be Robert Mounce,_ Revelation_ NICNT. Beyond that, I would go:

https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-B...RVF418PD7ZS&psc=1&refRID=3Y168AQB1RVF418PD7ZS

This is probably more accessible.
https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-V...MDYSDWJ7682&psc=1&refRID=SRC2YJ6M0MDYSDWJ7682

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Megs (Jan 18, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My main concern is when we find out what a text means, we let the text tell us what it means. Later on, church history events might inform our reading, but they cannot dictate our reading.
> 
> In terms of length and price, the most accessible would be Robert Mounce,_ Revelation_ NICNT.



Okay I just did a quick skim of Mounce so take this for what it's worth. To be honest, I don't see Mounce doing anything vastly different in his commentary from other commentators I have read or am reading such as a Brakel, Lee, Gill, Clarke, Henry, Elliott (haven't finished Horae Apocalypticae - I keep falling asleep while listening to it), etc.

I think the issue just comes down to a difference in what arguments and evidence we find persuasive.

I don't mind giving Mounce a closer reading once I have cleared off my backlogged reading list (I blame homeschooling - reading all those books for lessons all day wears one out!), but I have gone down the preterist rabbit-hole before and always found pieces of the eschatology jigsaw puzzle that just wouldn't fit. 

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, though! (and would dispute that's what historicists were doing). In any case, it will probably take me quite a while to fully get through Mounce, so there's not much else I can point you to right now unless I can find a good article on 2 Thessalonians or Daniel 2 or 7, which are shorter passages and easier to read quickly.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 18, 2020)

I used Mounce as an example. He follows an exegetical method and doesn't let later historical events determine the meaning of the Greek.


----------



## Megs (Jan 19, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I used Mounce as an example. He follows an exegetical method and doesn't let later historical events determine the meaning of the Greek.



This is where we are at an impasse and I don't think either of us will agree with the other. I will give you one example of what I mean:

Re Revelation 17, Mounce (I'm using the 1998 edition) acknowledges that the Greek can support two different understandings of the Whore of Babylon. Call them A and B. He then chooses understanding B based on his interpretive framework/assumptions. When he does that, you say he's doing exegesis and not reading anything, including history, into the Greek. 

On the other hand, when a historicist chooses understanding A based on his interpretive framework/assumptions, you say he's not doing exegesis and is reading history into the Greek.

Both sides have a framework and assumptions they are working with. Both sides are looking at the Greek. But the interpretation of one side is rejected even though commentators in other schools of thought acknowledge that the Greek could support both. So again, as I said earlier, it boils down to which interpretation and arguments you find the most convincing and that's okay.

I also don't see how the claim of "reading history into scripture" sticks without time travel being possible. If a person says they expect, based on their study of Daniel 2 and 7, that the Roman Empire will collapse future to their time, break into 10 kingdoms, etc., there is no history being read into their schema. They are saying, "This what the Scripture says based on my studies of said Scripture." History subsequently either does or does not bear out that understanding.

I have read futurists who interpret Daniel 2 and 7 in a similar manner to historicists (the NIV Study Bible is one example I can think of). They are not reading history into their interpretation because from their perspective, it hasn't happened yet.

But to suggest that historicists are not looking at the Hebrew or Greek to draw out the meaning of the text is, I would argue, mistaken. An example is re 2 Thessalonians 2 where the interpretation hinges in part on the Greek word used for "Temple." If I can re-find the sources I read on this, I will let you know.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2020)

Megs said:


> This is where we are at an impasse and I don't think either of us will agree with the other. I will give you one example of what I mean:
> 
> Re Revelation 17, Mounce (I'm using the 1998 edition) acknowledges that the Greek can support two different understandings of the Whore of Babylon. Call them A and B. He then chooses understanding B based on his interpretive framework/assumptions. When he does that, you say he's doing exegesis and not reading anything, including history, into the Greek.
> 
> ...



I am not saying people approach with a blank slate. There is a difference between making the best choice based on the options provided by the Greek text (we do it in Hebrew all the time) versus reading later church history into the passage.

For example, there is no way I can take Greg Price seriously when he reads the later Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne into the passage. It's just not there in the Greek.

You are correct. We might be at an impasse. I don't see late medieval Western European political history within the Greek text. In any case, I offered criticisms of historicism on the Great Tribulation earlier.


----------



## Megs (Jan 20, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For example, there is no way I can take Greg Price seriously when he reads the later Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne into the passage. It's just not there in the Greek.



I don't follow Greg Price but now you have me interested in reading what he wrote!

BTW, I used to read your blog years ago but then you kept changing your blog address and I had trouble chasing you all over the internet!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2020)

Megs said:


> I don't follow Greg Price but now you have me interested in reading what he wrote!



He is a schismatic. His universal church consists of three people.


Megs said:


> BTW, I used to read your blog years ago but then you kept changing your blog address and I had trouble chasing you all over the internet!



Sorry about that. I usually try to leave forwarding links.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2020)

I am not sure if this point has been made in this thread already, but, if so, it is one that bears reiterating. It is important to realise that the papal antichrist theory is not contingent upon a historicist reading of the book of Revelation. For example, John Calvin believed the pope was the man of sin but never wrote a commentary on Revelation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2020)

Megs said:


> I have read futurists who interpret Daniel 2 and 7 in a similar manner to historicists (the NIV Study Bible is one example I can think of). They are not reading history into their interpretation because from their perspective, it hasn't happened yet.



Thanks for drawing the above to my attention. I have two NIV Study Bibles (a small hardback one for travel and a really nice leather one, which I got at a knock-down price); I will be sure to check out the comments in the notes.


----------



## Megs (Jan 21, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Thanks for drawing the above to my attention. I have two NIV Study Bibles (a small hardback one for travel and a really nice leather one, which I got at a knock-down price); I will be sure to check out the comments in the notes.



Actually, it was a Kay Arthur study book on Daniel and the NIV notes that got me started on looking deeper into eschatology! I seem to recall them talking about the 4 empires in Daniel 2 & 7 in a similar manner to historicists (though this was many years ago).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Megs (Jan 21, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am not sure if this point has been made in this thread already, but, if so, it is one that bears reiterating. It is important to realise that the papal antichrist theory is not contingent upon a historicist reading of the book of Revelation. For example, John Calvin believed the pope was the man of sin but never wrote a commentary on Revelation.



True. David Silversides has a sermon on the "man of sin." I don't think he is a historicist:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112506153454


----------



## Gesetveemet (Jan 22, 2020)

Off topic link might disappear 
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/...omen-men-dance-in-suggestive-manner-for-pope/


----------



## Megs (Jan 22, 2020)

Gesetveemet said:


> Off topic link might disappear
> https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/...omen-men-dance-in-suggestive-manner-for-pope/



If you're interested in what the Pope and his allies are up to, I try to post headlines once a month. Here is last month's:

https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2019/12/rome-in-news-december-2019.html

This month's will be longer.


----------

