# The Roman Pope Is The Antichrist



## One Little Nail

I found this link today and thought I would share it here on the Forum, 

its a book called _*The Roman Pope Is The Antichrist*_ by Gavin Basil McGrath, who states that its;



> A Concise Commentary on the Antichrist, foretold by the Apostle John in I and II John, and by the Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians 2; with an appendix on the mark of the beast and the meaning of 666
> (Revised 1st edition 2006; 2nd edition 2010).


 
The Roman Pope Is The Antichrist, by Gavin McGrath


----------



## Leslie

A different, and increasingly popular view, is that the Antichrist will be Islamist, the Mahdi or the caliph. According to M tradition this "messiah" who is to come will fight against the "Dajjal," a bad guy according to them, one who claims to be the Son of God, who comes and deceives M's into converting to Christianity. It's fascinating reading, like reading a WW2 account about wonderful Adolph Hitler who almost succeeded in liberating Europe from the evil Jews.


----------



## Sovereign Grace

JFK was supposedly to be the anti-Christ, now people are attempting to label Obama the anti-Christ....

Personally, I am leaning towards the agreement that the papalcy(sp?) as a whole, makes up the anti-Christ...


----------



## arapahoepark

Leslie said:


> A different, and increasingly popular view, is that the Antichrist will be Islamist, the Mahdi or the caliph. According to M tradition this "messiah" who is to come will fight against the "Dajjal," a bad guy according to them, one who claims to be the Son of God, who comes and deceives M's into converting to Christianity. It's fascinating reading, like reading a WW2 account about wonderful Adolph Hitler who almost succeeded in liberating Europe from the evil Jews.


But, that is just newspaper exegesis peddled around by dispensationalists. It also gives too much credence that Islam's prophecies are true.


----------



## One Little Nail

Leslie said:


> A different, and increasingly popular view, is that the Antichrist will be Islamist, the Mahdi or the caliph.



what was posted contains scriptural exposition & was the unanimous position of the the reformed churches, both Lutheran & Reformed, as well as making it into their creeds & confessions, with the laters Westminster Confessions view of the Antichrist=Papacy being adopted by the Congregationalists (Savoy) & Baptists (1689?), these modern views are both novel & a fable, they don't fit into the prophetic literature which has to be bent, reshaped,moulded, chopped & changed
so that strange & fanciful interpretations can be seen to fit, its safer to go with the Testimony of the Reformed Churches.




Leslie said:


> According to M tradition this "messiah" who is to come will fight against the "Dajjal," a bad guy according to them, one who claims to be the Son of God, who comes and deceives M's into converting to Christianity. It's fascinating reading, like reading a WW2 account about "wonderful" Adolph Hitler who almost succeeded in liberating Europe from the evil Jews.



though muhammadens are antichrists their false prophetical writings hardly fit the Biblical Predictions, though need to be read & learnt by those folks doing apologetic & evangelistical work amongst them.


----------



## One Little Nail

I'd like to add Grattan Guinness' book Romanism and the Reformation from the standpoint of prophecy to make a 2 fold
witness of the Papacy being the Antichrist of Scripture from an Anglican perspective, he was a strong Protestant in its Classical sense unlike much of Anglicanism today which allows sodomites & women to be Bishops! 

http://whitehorsemedia.com/docs/ROMANISM_AND_THE_REFORMATION.pdf


----------



## Peairtach

Fairbairn's good on this too, in his "Interpretation of Prophecy".


----------



## kodos

The Papacy seems to fit very nicely. I don't think the Islamic antichrist theories are correct, and like others I ascribe them to Dispensationalist sensationalism and perpetual news based flights of fancy. 

2 Thessalonians 2:4 was the verse that convinced that "pope as antichrist" is probably correct.
"who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The temple of God being the Church of course. The Roman Pontiff sits as the "Vicar of Christ" and "Head" of the Church of God.

That said, it's not a hill I personally am about to die on


----------



## One Little Nail

Yes it really does depends on your Hermeneutics as the Dispensationalists take the Prophecy extremely literally as they do all Prophecy
which has them waiting for the building of the "3rd Temple" for some Future mythical antichrist to arise.

we Reformed look for a spiritual Temple, which is what Paul says we are, The Temple of The Lord & the Israel of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

kodos said:


> The Papacy seems to fit very nicely. ...
> That said, it's not a hill I personally am about to die on


Heh. Well there are seven hills in question.


----------



## kodos

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Papacy seems to fit very nicely. ...
> That said, it's not a hill I personally am about to die on
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. Well there are seven hills in question.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Robert & others who believe the thread title:

The American Revision of the WCF (1936) which the OPC & PCA hold to, which reads in 25.6 (the italicized portion _*omitted*_),
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: _but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God._​ 
the 1647 words were omitted at that part as it was felt unwise to bind oneself in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century to a view that certainly convinced the Reformers and the Westminster divines, so overwhelming in their day was the evidence presented to them, yet is not the case in ours today.

There is no doubt the various popes are antichrists, yet our view is that individual popes are “an antichrist” but not “the”; *a* man of sin, yet not *that* man of sin. The same may be said of them collectively. John said in his epistles that even in his day there were “many antichrists” (1 Jn 2:18).

I think the value of this is, while holding papal Rome thoroughly antichristian, we are open to seeing and assessing other antichrist manifestations peculiar to the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] and 21[SUP]st[/SUP] centuries.

Be it known I speak from a “modified idealist” amil perspective (others who hold this are G.K. Beale, Dennis E. Johnson, William Hendriksen, Kim Riddlebarger, Vern Poythress, Sam Waldron, Sam Storms, Cornelis Venema, Anthony Hoekema, etc). We see the “beast from the sea” (Rev 13:1) as antichristian persecuting governments – Rome in John’s day, other governments in later days – and the “beast from the earth” (Rev 13:11) as false teachers or false prophets, first in John’s day, and then up through the ages.

If we look about our present world – and our respective cultures (as there are many who are not Americans on this board) – we see many false teachers besides Rome, and many antichristian persecuting governments.

If we only have eyes on Rome we may be blind-sided when our respective governments lower the boom on us, as in demanding our allegiance to them over allegiance to our God and His word. This may well happen in the U.S. – which is becoming a police state (anybody read, _A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State_, by John Whitehead?) – which could implement control over our economy and our receiving our pay, Soc. Sec. benefits, and pensions. Don’t laugh – who would have thought we would see our government transform from the America we knew in the 1950s or even ‘80s to what it has become now?

To my thinking the old WCF, honored father though it is to our younger version, locks us into a view that keeps blinders over our eyes to rightly assessing our own times and the threats thereof. We have become Confession-driven in our views rather than Scripture-driven, and this is a great danger.

I’m not of a mind to engage in a drawn-out controversy over this, as I’m sure we can all come up with our respective interpretations of Scripture, and citations from learned men to support our understandings.

The older divines were right to warn against and stay alert to Rome and its incursions, but I think that in our day their old warnings tend to lull us to a sense of complacency. We also err in ascribing the attributes of Babylon to papal Rome solely, while becoming more and more intoxicated to the wine of the great harlot in our entertainment and tech-toy affluent cultures.

Just a responsible opposing viewpoint – for edification of those who are not satisfied with old fare.


----------



## One Little Nail

Steve, I'd like to see your exposition of those passages that protestants hold as referring to The Anti-Christ ie; Little Horn Dan 7, Man of Sin, Son of Perdition 2 Thess 2:3-4, Beast of Rev 13 etc


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Robert, 

you’re asking for *a lot* of exposition! Which is why I said I didn’t want to engage in a long drawn-out controversy on this. Besides, adequate amil exposition of these passages is done by – respectively – Stuart Olyott and E.J. Young (Daniel), Kim Riddlebarger and G.K. Beale (on Antichrist and 2 Thess 2), William Hendriksen, Dennis E. Johnson, G.K. Beale, and Vern Poythress (Revelation).

Or is the point we just go head-to-head with exegetical battering rams? I think more to the point would be mature reflection on eschatology and its schools and how they (via Scriptural exposition) illumine – or cloud – the times we are in at present.

Such an endeavor I have attempted in this thread, Thoughts on “Puritan Eschatology”, from Joel Beeke’s, _A Puritan Theology__._


----------



## One Little Nail

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Robert,
> 
> you’re asking for *a lot* of exposition! Which is why I said I didn’t want to engage in a long drawn-out controversy on this.


 

Hi Brother/Pastor Steve, 
was just looking for a short statement to see how your views compared to the _Historicist School_.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Or is the point we just go head-to-head with exegetical battering rams? I think more to the point would be mature reflection on eschatology and its schools and how they (via Scriptural exposition) illumine – or cloud – the times we are in at present.
> 
> Such an endeavor I have attempted in this thread, Thoughts on “Puritan Eschatology”, from Joel Beeke’s, _A Puritan Theology__._




though its definitely not a good idea as someone always comes off second best, no pun intended, besides I've seen the carnage in the Jerusalem Blade vs Armourbearer stoush's 
will still briefly reply to post #12 & look at the other thread Thoughts on “Puritan Eschatology”, from Joel Beeke’s, _A Puritan Theology__._ # Time Permitting#


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Well, Robert, you taught me a new word – stoush – and I gather it is more English than American, for I had not heard it before. Though I should say that the differences between Rev Winzer and myself are – to my mind – more on the order of _swordplay between friends_, even though this may become quite vigorous at times, even bruising, as the stakes are often of great consequence.


----------



## MW

"Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.


----------



## One Little Nail

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, Robert, you taught me a new word – stoush – and I gather it is more English than American, for I had not heard it before. Though I should say that the differences between Rev Winzer and myself are – to my mind – more on the order of _swordplay between friends_, even though this may become quite vigorous at times, even bruising, as the stakes are often of great consequence.



Hi Steve, the link to stoush said it was an informal Australian/New Zealand term, carnage was _hyperbole_ .
though it is good to see you two brothers acting as christian gentlemen, in the heat of polemic controversy, 
towards each other, it sets a good example for the rest of us to follow on the Board.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> "Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.



Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group, as The Antichrist and man of sin would point to an individual more so would it not, like the papacy an individual in an office. I'm sure the jews had 
a concept of an Antimessiah type individual whom they called Armilus.




> 2 Thess 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
> Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God




personally, yes the jews became antichristian, but there are many antichrists, do you mean to say that there is a double fulfilment of the antichrist prophecy both jewish & papal, the papacy seems to fit the Scriptural description of these,
particularly as Vicar of Christ is synonymous with Anti-Christ, and the man of sin/son of perdition quote has him sitting in
the temple of God, which in Pauline Terminology represents the Christian Church, which he says has gone into apostasy.

.


----------



## Peairtach

The Thessalonians II passage fits the Papacy well, and also indicates that the "mystery of iniquity" that would lead to the man of sin was already at work in the early NT Church, which fits with the development and emergence of the Papacy by the Fifth Century, rather than a figure who appears near the end of time.

The Apostle John in his letters, indicates that there are many antichrists - e.g. Gnostic "Christianity" is one if them with which he dealt - and yet that "The Antichrist" was coming. The Apostle Paul is evidently talking about "The Antichrist" in II Thessalonians.

In the Book of Revelation we have two symbolic figures which put pressure on the Woman to cause her to apostasise and become the Harlot. The Beast from the Sea represents persecution, quintessentially Nero and the Roman Empire, but not limited to them, and the Beast from the Earth (also called the False Prophet) represents false teachers and antichrists within the visible Church, quintessentially, the Papacy, but not limited to it.

Revelation 17 and 18 indicates that apostate Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church, will be overthrown in history. 

Revelation 19 indicates that Christ will defeat unsanctified and prrsecutory worldly powers and false teaching in His Church in history, by the means God has appointed. 

Christ will not glorify Himself in and through His Gospel, His Spirit, and His Church, in the same way and to the same extent, if He returns to judge the world before He has made a display of His enemies by these appointed means in history.

The Bible indicates that He will make a thorough display of His enemies in history through the overall and worldwide success of His appointed means which can only be exercised before the end of time e.g. Psalm 110. The Second Advent at the Eschaton is the time for full vindication of Christ and His people and for judgment.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group,



The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her, but covenanted Israel which rejected Christ and was subsequently cast off and identified with the godless world. We tend to read 2 Thess. 2 and assume a "Christian" context, but the relationship between Christianity and national Israel was still being worked out when the apostle wrote. The terms "apostasy," "man of sin," and "son of perdition" are eschatologically defined by the Old Testament vision of the "day of the Lord."


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her, but covenanted Israel which rejected Christ and was subsequently cast off and identified with the godless world. We tend to read 2 Thess. 2 and assume a "Christian" context, but the relationship between Christianity and national Israel was still being worked out when the apostle wrote. The terms "apostasy," "man of sin," and "son of perdition" are eschatologically defined by the Old Testament vision of the "day of the Lord."
Click to expand...



Paul is _definitely_ refering to the Christian Church, & not Isreal (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17



> 16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
> 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.



and also in


> 1 Cor 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?



showing with a two fold Scriptural witness that the true Temple of God is the Christian, thus the 1st Century was still to early for the Great Apostasy to have occurred, it occurred in a later period of the catholic church, though the mystery of iniquity was already at work, the man of sin/son of perdition is that very antichrist or daniel's little horn & Rev 13's Image of the Beast, so was not yet manifest. 

did not the Apostle John write his first epistle late first century, even after the book of Revelation, which was
written around 95/96 AD, stating that there were many antichrists, apparently this epistle was written against cernthius 
among other reasons, he was an antichrist, but "_*The*_" Antichrist had not yet come.



> 1John 2:18Little 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.



I'm be interested to see what Old Testament Prophetic "day of the Lord" passages you're referring to, as I have an inkling
that you may be aligning this to the 70AD Destruction to fit it into the 1st Century window. 

The Legality of the Covenant relationship between God and fleshly Isreal had been set & finalised, Pentecost showed that the Shekinah Glory of God's manifest presence had been transferred over to the New Covenant people, the skeletal remains that were left had been earmarked for destruction as Dan 9 & Matt 24 clearly show.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> Paul is _definitely_ refering to the Christian Church, & not Isreal (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17



Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense. The passage makes excellent sense when temple is understood to be the temple which symbolised Israel's sacred privileges.



One Little Nail said:


> the 1st Century was still to early for the Great Apostasy to have occurred,



According to Romans 11, it was happening before the apostle's eyes. V. 12, "the fall of them." V. 15, "The casting away of them."



One Little Nail said:


> I'm be interested to see what Old Testament Prophetic "day of the Lord" passages you're referring to, as I have an inkling that you may be aligning this to the 70AD Destruction to fit it into the 1st Century window.



The 70AD event is not the fulfilment of what the apostle speaks. At the same time, that event would not have been possible without the fulfilment of what the apostle speaks. The apostle is speaking of the revelation of a covenanted nation as an apostate and lawless people, who nevertheless still claim divine privileges on account of the temple.

The Old Testament prophesied of the day of the Lord as a time in which God would shake the existing order and bring in something new. Altering the Jew-Gentile separation was fundamental to that change. The final result of that change would be the man of sin, which would be revealed as a consequence of the apostasy of covenanted Israel. In Ephesians 2 God makes of Jew and Gentile believers one new covenanted man in Christ. That which has been de-covenanted is the man of sin.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some exchanges here:
Matthew: "Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.​ 
----
Robert: Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group​ 
----
Matthew: The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her, but covenanted Israel which rejected Christ and was subsequently cast off and identified with the godless world.​ 

Steve: Matthew, I can see where antichrist is part of the eschatological context of the NT and developed _in part _among the unbelieving Jews (though also in Gnosticism), but having the “man of sin . . . properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel” as well is wrong. Okay, there was a forewarning of the “man of sin” in Daniel, but this is not what you are talking about.

And then you say to Robert that both AC and MOS are “The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her” (by which latter I take it you mean the State of Israel today) as though the two were different. Have I understood you right?

And then when Robert says, “Paul is _definitely_ referring to the Christian Church, & not Israel (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17”, and you aver,
Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense.​ 
When you fly such hermeneutical colors I worry about you! And about your influence on others. This is really such murky water I wonder about the wisdom of my wading into it. THIS is why folks are averse to approaching eschatology – such confusion is being disseminated!


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When you fly such hermeneutical colors I worry about you! And about your influence on others. This is really such murky water I wonder about the wisdom of my wading into it. THIS is why folks are averse to approaching eschatology – such confusion is being disseminated!



There is no need to worry. Steve. I recommend a study of the Old Testament which looks at the impact of the day of the Lord on national Israel. Once it is observed that Israel is the focal point of the day of the Lord it should be obvious that the apostle was not speaking of something which lay in the distant future after national Israel had been cut off from unique covenantal privileges. It should be clear that he was speaking of something which is now a matter of history and which we take for granted in our understanding of the church of Jews and Gentiles being the true Israel.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for your irenic response, Matthew, but my concerns are not allayed. Indeed _some_ references to the "day of the LORD" in the OT refer to the first advent of Christ, as in Malachi 4:5, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.” And there are many others.

Yet also to be reckoned with are those clearly pointing to the coming of Christ in final judgment at the end of time, such as Isaiah 2:10-21 with John in Rev 6:15-17 referring to this Isaiah passage, as well as Peter in his 2nd epistle 3:10 referring to Isaiah 34:1-4, and in verse 8 to "the day of the LORD’s vengeance".

It is not "one size fits all", but discernment must be exercised to apply the "day of the LORD" passages appropriately. Sometimes a first advent fulfillment *and* a final fulfillment are included together in one comprehensive "day of the LORD". In a sense the "day of the LORD" covers the entire inter-advental period, with the King governing the nations from His throne of power, fulfilling His plan. There is also a vengeance against apostate Israel, *and* a vengeance against the heathen at the end of time. But I know with your eschatological view we see very differently, and even speak a different language, using the same terms but with different meanings.

You said, "The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her" – could you please clarify what you are referring to when you say, "national Israel as we know her"?


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Indeed _some_ references to the "day of the LORD" in the OT refer to the first advent of Christ



Steve, I do not think your "two-phase" view will stand up under scrutiny. How can it? The Old Testament prophecies relate to Israel as a covenant people. By amillennial (or inaugurated eschatology) standards, the church is the covenant people and Israel has ceased for ever to be an unique covenant nation. One must espouse a form of dispensationalism to argue that Israel's day of the Lord must have a second phase of fulfilment.

We see national Israel now as another geopolitical nation, stripped of all her covenant privileges and ornaments, and co-existing with the same status as any other nation of the world. The New Testament was written while the nation still functioned as a covenant people with special promises. As the book of Hebrews indicates, the New Testament was written from the standpoint where the new covenant had been established but the old covenant was still lingering. The apostolic age was transitional, and looked forward to the removal of those things which were transient.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew, I wouldn’t call it “two-phase” but rather a general designation, this – day of the LORD – with many referents. It refers often to judgment upon the wicked (for example, against Babylon in Isa 13, though universal judgment is mentioned there also vv 9-13), but may as well refer to the Saviour God coming to save and bless His people (as in Joel, following judgment, “afterward” shall come blessing and the pouring out of God’s Spirit, as seen in the last half of chap 2).

When you use the word “amillennial” we both know you are talking of something quite different that the amillennialism that is current today in Reformed circles, but instead the “full idealism” of William Milligan circa the 1800s. Which form of idealism is refuted by contemporary amils.

The NT church was often the subject of OT prophecy, and often spoken of there as “Israel” or “Jerusalem” (i.e., Isaiah 2:2-4; 65:17 ff), and even today the NT church is spoken of as Israel (Heb 8:8; 3:1-6; Eph 2:12,19; Gal 6:16). So the OT prophecies designating the day of the LORD to Israel in New Covenant times *is* referring to the NT church.

Part of your error is you refer to the Jewish state as Israel, albeit “national Israel”. I would not go that far, though I concede to political terminology and do use the legal name “the State of Israel”, yet often qualifying that as “imposter Israel”.

When Peter preached the sermon recorded in Acts, saying the words (reiterating Moses in Deut 18),
“For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:22,23)​ 
it was at this point established that whoever refused to hear Jesus’ words – and those words He gave the apostles to speak in His name – was cut off from the people of Israel. The efficacy of the temple sacrifices were rendered null and void by God, in light of the great and final sacrifice of God the Son in the Person of Christ.

When the physical temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the day of the LORD’s vengeance had formally commenced. And the curses of the broken covenant listed in Deuteronomy 28 have followed the Jewish people down through the centuries, even to this day in 2014. In my book, _A Poet Arises In Israel_, is written,
I say the rabbis have led my people into the curses of Moses these past twenty-one centuries, for if we had pleased God and were under the sure covenant blessings and protection of Deuteronomy 28, how could we possibly have been spewed from the land to be slaughtered and despised among the goyim two thousand years, and to end up in the ovens of Hitler? The truth is – and only can be! – we have followed treasonous leaders in betrayal of our King, and we have reaped their destruction. O nation of fools, we, to be blinded so long! As the prophets foretold, the Gentiles came to His light, and we followed our teachers into darkness.

Awake, O Israel, for the days further darken, and we need our Mighty One to see our way. Seek out the Messianic Jews among us, and cast off the pretenders who have slain our millions!​ 
When I use the term “Israel” above I refer to the sleeping elect in world Jewry, or to the global community of Christ the King of Israel. I do agree with you, Matthew, the Jewish State is but “another geopolitical nation, stripped of all her covenant privileges and ornaments, and co-existing with the same status as any other nation of the world.”

What the LORD has in mind for her as a nation-state of Jews I do not know; perhaps He shall draw many of the Jews – from world Jewry as well – to Himself; it may be the land is as a threshing-floor, a place of judgment to separate wheat from chaff. It matters to me, as I have family and friends among the Jews unsaved, deceived by rabbinic darkness.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When you use the word “amillennial” we both know you are talking of something quite different that the amillennialism that is current today in Reformed circles, but instead the “full idealism” of William Milligan circa the 1800s. Which form of idealism is refuted by contemporary amils.



Steve, You are being dismissive. The interpretation of Revelation is not the subject under discussion. Should you desire to interact with what I have said I am happy to continue the discussion of the relationship of Israel and the church in New Testament eschatology. But I am not interested in listening to another episode of argument by consensus, especially when it is well known that there is no consensus on these topics.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sorry, Matthew, I didn’t mean to be “dismissive”, just to point out that your use of the word “amillennial” often bears more freight than common usage does, which may reflect on this discussion by engendering confusion.

When you say (post #23) to Robert’s statement that Paul is referring to the NT church in 2 Thess 2 when he speaks of the man of sin in the temple being the pope/papacy (though I differ in that I see a newer and different manifestation than that),
Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense. The passage makes excellent sense when temple is understood to be the temple which symbolised Israel's sacred privileges​ 
I have not heard such an interpretation before. Paul’s preponderant use of the word “temple” is in reference to the NT church or to individual believers, as the place where the Spirit of God indwells.


----------



## One Little Nail

*2 Thess 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God *




armourbearer said:


> "Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.



This puts an unnecessary dual or multiple fulfilment on a specific Prophesy, it cannot be both the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel & the Papacy, it has to one or the other, & as it can't be the first it is the latter.




armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul is _definitely_ refering to the Christian Church, & not Isreal (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense. The passage makes excellent sense when temple is understood to be the temple which symbolised Israel's sacred privileges.
Click to expand...


Paul himself refers to the Christian or believing Jew/Gentile as the Temple of the Lord it is *not* an _*allegorical interpretation*_ as you say, but is a _*Spiritualised Interpretation*_, nevertheless it is not an arbitrary Interpretation either it is there in the Text. 



One Little Nail said:


> 16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
> 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
> and also in
> 1 Cor 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?



The Antichrist will be seated in the Outward Professing Christian Church or the New Testament Temple of Paul, have you not heard it written that


> Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.






armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 1st Century was still to early for the Great Apostasy to have occurred,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Romans 11, it was happening before the apostle's eyes. V. 12, "the fall of them." V. 15, "The casting away of them."
Click to expand...


The Jews had already in Jesus' day excommunicated those who had Believed on Jesus, they had rejected His message & that of his Apostles, they had already Apostatized by the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, roughly 50-53AD, and Paul mentions that the Apostasy had not as yet occurred which casts doubt on it referring to the Jews, Paul says it in reference to the Lord's Second Coming, that the Second Coming hadn't occurred yet, nor could


> except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


 evidentally this falling away or Apostasy had not occurred yet, but has since Paul's day being seen in the Apostasy of the Catholic Church both Eastern & Western branches. Of which Paul also wrote about in 



> 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;


 & to the Ephesian Elders he remarked 


> Act 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.






armourbearer said:


> The apostle is speaking of the revelation of a covenanted nation as an apostate and lawless people, who nevertheless still claim divine privileges on account of the temple.
> The Old Testament prophesied of the day of the Lord as a time in which God would shake the existing order and bring in something new. Altering the Jew-Gentile separation was fundamental to that change. The final result of that change would be the man of sin, which would be revealed as a consequence of the apostasy of covenanted Israel. In Ephesians 2 God makes of Jew and Gentile believers one new covenanted man in Christ. That which has been de-covenanted is the man of sin.




Unfortunately this becomes a *Fulfilled Pretarist Interpretation*, not only does it distort the Exegetical Interpretation of the above mentioned Scriptures it *changes* the _*Confessional Protestant view*_
that *The Papacy is The Antichrist*, which is the *Historicist more sure Word of Prophecy*, & it also basically aligns itself with the other notorious * Counter-Reformation Pretarist Scheme* of the 
*Neronic Antichrist*, that is Emperor Nero as an already Fulfilled First Century Antichrist/Man of Sin/ Son of Perdition because it has a First Century Fulfillment.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sorry, Matthew, I didn’t mean to be “dismissive”, just to point out that your use of the word “amillennial” often bears more freight than common usage does, which may reflect on this discussion by engendering confusion.



Steve, when I use the word "amillennial," I am seeking to represent the mainstream. I will use other terms where there are differences. E.g., optimistic, or consistent idealist. In this case, the relationship between Israel and the church is fairly standard. There is no reason for you to call it into question.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I have not heard such an interpretation before. Paul’s preponderant use of the word “temple” is in reference to the NT church or to individual believers, as the place where the Spirit of God indwells.



The preterist interpretation is fairly common, and understands temple literally.

Those who take the symbolical view of temple are required to make it relate to the church in a way the apostle never symbolically used it. "He sitteth in the temple of God" requires an occupation which effectively destroys the symbolism as understood and used by the apostle when speaking of the church. It could not be identified as "the temple" where there is no habitation of the Spirit. The literal temple, however, still continued to be recognised as the temple of God by the believing remnant which continued to worship there.

From the perspective of First Thessalonians 2, the Jews were still filling up their sins in the rejection and persecution of Christ, and in this sense the wrath of God was coming upon them to the uttermost. The days of vengeance were in operation in the time of the apostles before the temple was physically destroyed. The material contained in Second Thessalonians was not a single prophecy, but formed a part of the apostle's teaching concerning Jesus being the Messiah (Acts 18:5), which the unbelieving Jews "opposed" (verse 6), and even "blasphemed." 2 Thess. 2:5 reminds the Thessalonians that he told them of these things while he was yet with them. In Thessalonica, as later in Corinth, it was the unbelieving Jews who opposed themselves to the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> This puts an unnecessary dual or multiple fulfilment on a specific Prophesy, it cannot be both the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel & the Papacy, it has to one or the other, & as it can't be the first it is the latter.



I distinguished between interpretation and application. The Papacy is not the fulfilment, but it bears strong resemblances to the fulfilment.



One Little Nail said:


> Paul himself refers to the Christian or believing Jew/Gentile as the Temple of the Lord it is *not* an _*allegorical interpretation*_ as you say, but is a _*Spiritualised Interpretation*_, nevertheless it is not an arbitrary Interpretation either it is there in the Text.



Please refer to my response to Steve.



One Little Nail said:


> The Jews had already in Jesus' day excommunicated those who had Believed on Jesus, they had rejected His message & that of his Apostles, they had already Apostatized by the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, roughly 50-53AD



The temple was still functioning and believing Jews were still worshipping there, as the book of Acts plainly demonstrates.



One Little Nail said:


> Unfortunately this becomes a *Fulfilled Pretarist Interpretation*, not only does it distort the Exegetical Interpretation of the above mentioned Scriptures it *changes* the _*Confessional Protestant view*_



There is no confessional Protestant view. Nor do I distort the "exegetical interpretation" (all interpretation should be exegetical). I have sought to show how the passage relates in the eschatolgical perspective and outlook of the time when it was written.


----------



## baron

Not sure if this is germane to OP. Was reading in Hortons book Calvin and the Christian Life, Even the sixth century Roman bishop Gregory the Great said that universal pontiff was a form of proud address and that any bishop who assumed that title was a precursor to Antichrist. Letters of Pope Gregory the Great, book 5, epistle 18. I looked up the word precursor means something that comes before something else and that often leads to or influences its development. Funny though how they call him pope. So are they saying that every pope is the antichrist?

I do not know much on this subject, any one know how the medieval church taught on the subject of antichrist. Does any one really know who the antichrist is? One can spend all day guessing.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Well, Matthew, I should amend what I said to, I had not heard a purported amil render such an interpretation before, but then you are full of surprises, as I have discovered at other times. 

Do you and your preterist friends consider that of the eight times Paul uses the word “temple” in his epistles, five are explicit references to the Christian individual or the corporate body of Christians in which the Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16; 3:17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Nor would I call this “symbolic” but actual reality whereas the temple of crumbling stones was now but a shadow, empty of even typical reality. One we suspend judging for the moment is the 2 Thess 2:4 use, and 1 Cor 8:10 is an idol’s temple, 1 Cor 9:13 is comparing the correlation between the priests’ the Levites’ right to eat of the things of the temple (cf Lev 6:16) and the right of ministers of the gospel to partake of the “carnal” offerings of the flock.

That the old stone temple no longer had typical / symbolic efficacy to take away sins is shown in Hebrews, that Christ’s “one sacrifice for sins forever” (10:13) was “the one offering” that perfected the sanctification of God’s people (v 14), so that their “sins and iniquities will [God] remember no more” (v 17), and thus “there is no more offering for sin” (v 18) in the Levitical system, or anywhere.

So when you say, “The literal temple . . . still continued to be recognised as the temple of God by the believing remnant which continued to worship there”, such does not give this “temple” any authenticity or reality as the temple of God, notwithstanding the believing Jews’ error in cleaving to the old, forsaken shadows. God would remedy that quickly when He “sent forth his armies, and destroyed [the] murderers, and burned up their city” (Matt 22:7) at the hand of Titus in AD 70.

I do not believe we see _anywhere_ in Paul’s epistles the use of the literal temple as the place for the spiritual worship of believers in the Spirit of Christ.

Geerhardus Vos makes an interesting observation in his, _The Pauline Eschatology_, in the chapter, “The Man of sin”. He makes a distinction between the figure of antichrist (which Scripturally is seen only in John’s epistles), who is not only an antagonist to Christ and the doctrine of Christ, but one who seeks to replace, supplant, or reign instead Him; on the other hand he sees the “man of sin” as one
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God (2 Thess 2:4)​ 
and is quite distinct from the one who would stand in place of Christ (who as Messiah is subject to God the Father), for the man of sin repudiates even the idea of God and Christ and exalts himself, being subject to no one and especially to no divinity, showing himself that he is deity. There was no such person or activity among the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] century Jews.

Later I will offer Riddlebarger’s synthesis of the two, antichrist and man of sin.

----

The “fairly standard” view of “the relationship between Israel and the church” is what in your opinion?

My view is that the Church was the elect congregation within the larger community of Israel in Old Testament times (Acts 7:38 AV; Heb 2:12 AV); in New Testament times Israel is that community gathered around and joined as members to the only true Israelite, the King, Jesus of Nazareth. The capital of NT Israel is “Jerusalem which is above . . . which is the mother of us all” (Gal 4:26), “heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22), and on New Earth upon which Heaven also dwells, the great city is New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2), the light and glory of which are the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb (Rev 21:22,23). 

Regarding this Lamb; when God said in Isaiah 46:13, “. . . I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory”, what is this “Israel my glory”? In its very essence it is Jesus Christ, for He alone is unsullied and without iniquity, “the brightness of his [Father’s] glory, and the express image of his person” (Heb 1:3) – the only one worthy the name Israel, and He is the glory of God.

Every one who is joined unto Christ shares in His glory, and in His name, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16).


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, Matthew, I should amend what I said to, I had not heard a purported amil render such an interpretation before, but then you are full of surprises, as I have discovered at other times.



Steve, church history provides a large range of hearing on this subject. Being locked into the "contemporary" voice is very limiting.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Do you and your preterist friends consider that of the eight times Paul uses the word “temple” in his epistles, five are explicit references to the Christian individual or the corporate body of Christians in which the Holy Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16; 3:17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).



I obviously had considered it because I just answered it in my previous response to you. Perhaps you could reply to what I wrote rather than provide a reiteration of your previous point.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> That the old stone temple no longer had typical / symbolic efficacy to take away sins is shown in Hebrews, that Christ’s “one sacrifice for sins forever” (10:13) was “the one offering” that perfected the sanctification of God’s people (v 14), so that their “sins and iniquities will [God] remember no more” (v 17), and thus “there is no more offering for sin” (v 18) in the Levitical system, or anywhere.



That is the reality which makes the picture of the literal temple in 2 Thess 2 so shocking and abhorrent. Here you are making the case for a literal referent.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> God would remedy that quickly when He “sent forth his armies, and destroyed [the] murderers, and burned up their city” (Matt 22:7) at the hand of Titus in AD 70.



I don't see the AD 70 event in Scripture. That event is more a consequence of what the Scripture describes. The Scripture speaks of Israel as a nation in covenant with God. It is the de-covenanting of the nation which makes it possible for it to be treated like every other nation of the world.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I do not believe we see _anywhere_ in Paul’s epistles the use of the literal temple as the place for the spiritual worship of believers in the Spirit of Christ.



This is irrelevant as the temple is not used in this "spiritual" sense in 2 Thess 2.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The “fairly standard” view of “the relationship between Israel and the church” is what in your opinion?



That there is one covenant of grace with two administrations -- law and gospel. That God's provisions for national Israel would have an end, and this end belongs to the last days. That the spiritual blessings of Israel are the inheritance of the church of Jews and Gentiles upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The day of the Lord concludes the old economy and inaugurates the new. In which case, it is impossible for national Israel to be judged a second time as a covenanted nation. Moreover, if this is made to apply to the church it will have the effect of de-covenanting the church and bringing in another new order. The double fulfilment schema does not fit the prophetic program.


----------



## MW

From John Lightfoot, one of the Westminster divines:

Works, 3:232: “The mystery of iniquity was already working,” when the apostle wrote this Epistle, which cannot possibly be understood but of the Jewish nation; and so it is explained again and again. The several characters, that the apostle gives of “the man of sin,” agree most thoroughly to that generation and nation; and so the Scripture plainly applies them to it.

Works, 6:340: And, by the way, learn from the apostle there, how to construe ‘the last times;’ which phrase occurs so frequently, – for the ‘last times of the Jewish state and city.’ And I must crave leave to understand that passage concerning ‘the man of sin’ in 2 Thess. 2, of these very persons, and of those very times. I read the Romish antichrist in the Revelation, in great letters; but, truly, I can read none but the Jewish antichrist in this place.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew, you said,
“Those who take the symbolical view of temple are required to make it relate to the church in a way the apostle never symbolically used it. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God’ requires an occupation which effectively destroys the symbolism as understood and used by the apostle when speaking of the church. It could not be identified as "the temple" where there is no habitation of the Spirit. The literal temple, however, still continued to be recognised as the temple of God by the believing remnant which continued to worship there.”​ 
This you say erroneously applies a prophecy to be fulfilled later in the church to the Jewish era, where it was not fulfilled (Lightfoot’s views notwithstanding), though, as John says, there were many antichrists already in his day; but these are two different phenomena. I reiterated my point to make the case clearer to those watching. It appears we are talking past each other, though I do try to directly engage with what you say.

As I also said, the day of the LORD has numerous applications, judgment upon apostate Israel, and also – later – judgment upon the wicked world. I gave Scripture to support that. The day of the LORD is also, while terror to the ungodly, joy and redemption to the saints. This may not fit _your_ “prophetic program” but it does the view I hold forth.

Are not the curses due to breaking the covenant – see Deuteronomy 28 – still upon apostate Jewry? The holocaust, was that not part of it – the result of refusing God’s protection and care in Messiah? Are there not promises yet left for those elect Jews who turn back to God in repentance through Messiah? This is not spiritually legitimizing the apostate Jewish State, but applies to individual Jews scattered throughout the world, including those in said state.

In _A Poet Arises In Israel_ I do seek to speak to such. It is a nation to be evangelized. Plus it has a history that may provide in them (the elect at any rate) a heart to hear the pure gospel such as Paul brought first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile.

Indeed, as you say, “church history provides a large range of hearing on this subject. Being locked into the ‘contemporary’ voice is very limiting.” And this is the crux of our differences, I think. I have found that the contemporary reflections – such as those spoken of in this thread – are more productive, and limiting only to that which is no longer relevant to our day. For instance, the “mediate prophecy” of the Puritans, and the “eschatological excess” spoken of by Bauckham are things to be considered.

If one considers the views of church history (as done in the link just provided) there is much profit in it. “Being locked into” precludes considering others’ views. I actually have learned a lot interacting with you re eschatology over the years.


----------



## MW

Steve, Because Israel has been judged as a covenant people, and she is no longer a nation in covenant with God, there is no possibility of it happening a second time. The church is recognised as the Israel of God and the inheritor of the promises, but the Israel of God can never be apostate in the sense Israel was because this is the true Israel. Likewise the body of believers is the temple of God because it is the fulfilment of what the temple stood for, but should that body cease to believe it would also cease to be recognised as the temple. It is also contrary to Scripture to suppose that the gospel or the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way. The gospel is called everlasting and the Holy Spirit is the presence of Christ with His church to the end of the world.

The man of sin is the Wicked (anomos -- without the law) nation of Israel, which has been cast off and is now considered as sinful like every other nation of the world because it has been stripped bare of covenant privileges. That which is taken out of the way is the final provision of the old dispensation which required the gospel to be preached to the Jew first in fulfilment of the promises to the fathers. The mystery of iniquity already worked so that the truth of the promises was not received in the love of it. The apostasy was a corporate falling away from the promise to the fathers. The temple was the literal temple upon which the nation continued to claim divine prerogatives for itself and thereby exalted itself above the very God which the temple was built to serve.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> Steve,...It is also contrary to Scripture to suppose that the gospel or the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way. The gospel is called everlasting and the Holy Spirit is the presence of Christ with His church to the end of the world.



I don't understand Matthew why you are trying to suggest that Steve even made such a remark, he didn't even make a sniff of any sort or type of Dispensationalism ie that the gospel or the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way?

I'm of the opinion also that Old Israel's Covenants are binding & that he/she is under the curses of Deuteronomy 28, this 
doesn't mean that "the gospel or the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way" but that one day, current Unbelieving Israel
after the flesh will be grafted back on to the "Olive Tree" as even you believe brother! 




armourbearer said:


> The man of sin is the Wicked (anomos -- without the law) nation of Israel, which has been cast off and is now considered as sinful like every other nation of the world because it has been stripped bare of covenant privileges. That which is taken out of the way is the final provision of the old dispensation which required the gospel to be preached to the Jew first in fulfilment of the promises to the fathers. The mystery of iniquity already worked so that the truth of the promises was not received in the love of it. The apostasy was a corporate falling away from the promise to the fathers. The temple was the literal temple upon which the nation continued to claim divine prerogatives for itself and thereby exalted itself above the very God which the temple was built to serve.


 

So Matthew if you're going to _*Literalise*_ the 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, then Literalise the whole prophesy & not
just apart of it, it is specific about a single individual being the man of sin who, seats himself in the, again literal Temple,
and proclaims himself God!


> Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God



was this ever done by any Jewish High Priest as they were the only ones to ever enter the Temple, albiet only once a year,
no I have never heard of such, as you say that it was old Israel, please be consisently literal in your interpretation of prophesy, which is one of the Main Pillars that Dispensationalism resides on by the way (and you may like them find yourself a full blown Pre Millennial Dispensationalism  ) they also hold to a Literal Temple & Personal Antichrist/Man of Sin, albeit they throw everything into the Future.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> I don't understand Matthew why you are trying to suggest that Steve even made such a remark



I don't understand, Robert, why you are saying that I tried to suggest Steve made the remark. I never connected the view with Steve. Just because a person makes an argument in reply to another person does not mean everythig in that argument is a refutation of something the other person said.

Speaking as a moderator, Robert, I find you often inflame and disrupt discussions with these kinds of comments. You try to make things too personal. Why not allow a subject to be discussed without respect of persons.

As for the point at hand, the church of Jews and Gentiles, as the inheritor of Israel's promises, will have the gospel and the Spirit to the end of the age. The idea that this church will turn apostate is contrary to the promises. That is the basic point I was making. An apostate church is not the Israel or temple of God.



One Little Nail said:


> I'm of the opinion also that Old Israel's Covenants are binding



Then we are all undone. This is very bad news. Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Do you not have any good news for us?



One Little Nail said:


> So Matthew if you're going to _*Literalise*_ the 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, then Literalise the whole prophesy & not just apart of it, it is specific about a single individual being the man of sin who, seats himself in the, again literal Temple, and proclaims himself God!



The futurist view generally holds the man of sin to be a specific individual. But when "man" is taken as a Hebraism it is literally understood as a singular example or defining characteristic. The Jews regarded Gentiles as "sinners" on the basis of their coventantal privileges. When the unbelieving Jews were finally revealed as an uncovenanted nation they would be identified as the man of sin.


----------



## MW

Robert, I should also note that some amillennial futurists, so far as the restraint of 2 Thess. 2 and the binding of Rev. 20 is concerned, do suggest that the gospel is the restraining power. Riddlebarger writes (The Man of Sin, p. 132): "Something, perhaps the preaching of the gospel, is already restraining the power of lawlessness, keeping it from prevailing. If Paul's restrainer/restraint is in any way connected to the angel of Revelation 20, then the case becomes all the stronger that Paul is indeed speaking of the preaching of the gospel as presently holding back the power of evil."

Riddlebarger goes on to turn his suggestion into a matter of fact (p. 134): "Paul's Man of Sin presides over an end-times apostasy in Christ's church. He is the culmination of that series of antichrists already plaguing the apostolic church, and he is presently being restrained by the preaching of the gospel, until such time as God lifts his supernatural restraint and the Man of Lawlessness is finally revealed. And when that day comes, the second coming of the Lord will not be far behind."

Such is the dismal prospect which amillennial futurism holds for the spiritual temple of God.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand Matthew why you are trying to suggest that Steve even made such a remark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand, Robert, why you are saying that I tried to suggest Steve made the remark. I never connected the view with Steve. Just because a person makes an argument in reply to another person does not mean everything in that argument is a refutation of something the other person said.
Click to expand...


My apologies Matthew, I wasn't trying to be personal,* I mistook you comment*, thinking you were making a logical conclusion as to Steve's position, and yes agreed that...


> Just because a person makes an argument in reply to another person does not mean everything in that argument is a refutation of something the other person said.






armourbearer said:


> As for the point at hand, the church of Jews and Gentiles, as the inheritor of Israel's promises, will have the gospel and the Spirit to the end of the age. The idea that this church will turn apostate is contrary to the promises. That is the basic point I was making. An apostate church is not the Israel or temple of God.



During the the Great Reformation Theological Battles that raged between the Protestants & the Romanist's, the latter claimed that they were the True Church, that it was Infallible & could not err from the Truth. The Protestant's retorted that they had indeed apostatized from the Truth, that just as in Elijah's day God had reserved unto Himself 7000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal, so to speak, the outward Visible church can apostatize while God keeps a remnant (which would be pre Trent & the Catholic Church's Unchurching [of which I've written about previously]), the True Bride of Christ or Church Invisible was either contained within the corrupt body as a dispersed remnant or in some particular Churches which stayed true or had either separated from the Roman communion. Calvin had used the prophets words the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord trust not in lying words to show the Romanist that they were to not trust in the infallibility of the outward 
Visible Church. 




armourbearer said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the opinion also that Old Israel's Covenants are binding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we are all undone. This is very bad news. Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Do you not have any good news for us?
Click to expand...


There is a future ingathering into Christ of the Jews to occur immediately before the 2nd Coming of the Lord,


> Rom 11:24 how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


 & 


> Rom 11:15 what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?


 
This is why I'm also sort of leaning to a Republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant, a dual Covenant embracing both the Covenant of Grace unto Life & the Covenant of Works unto Death, because why was it necessary for The 
Lord Jesus to fulfill the Laws of the Mosaic Covenant to attain eternal redemption for His people if it did not contain a Republication of the Covenant of Works, He would simply have had to fulfill Adam's broken covenant of Works to attain eternal Life,but as it was written 


> Galations 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.



Christ is made a Surety for us, He has fulfilled the Law in our stead, keeping it's statutes entire thus giving us right to eternal life & bearing it's penalty giving us pardon from it's curse.


----------



## MW

Robert, apology accepted. Thankyou.

If Calvin "used" the temple of the Lord statement in his own context, that was an application to his own situation. I freely grant this. But again, interpretation and application are two different things. In interpretation we are seeking to find the intent of the writing in the context in which it was written. In application we take what we have learned from interpretation and implement its normative value in our own situation.

The Reformers and Puritans were quite correct to see the characteristics of the man of sin in the Papacy. But we are not bound to follow their interpretations when we have further light in this matter. The fact is, the Papacy has not been destroyed as they thought it would long before now. The 1260 years is well and truly concluded and the Papacy is still here. The tendency to keep changing the historical events and move the timeline forward to suit the age in which the commentator lived is a fair indication that there is something amiss in the historicist method of interpretation.

I find your understanding of the two covenants to be very problematic, but it would take this discussion far afield to enter into it. Suffice to say, the only hope for Israel is in the gospel, not in the law.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> If Calvin "used" the temple of the Lord statement in his own context, that was an application to his own situation. I freely grant this. But again, interpretation and application are two different things. In interpretation we are seeking to find the intent of the writing in the context in which it was written. In application we take what we have learned from interpretation and implement its normative value in our own situation.



That was just to show that if Old Testament Israel had the The Temple yet apostatized, so could the visible Church, neither were *Infallible*. 




armourbearer said:


> The Reformers and Puritans were quite correct to see the characteristics of the man of sin in the Papacy. But we are not bound to follow their interpretations when we have further light in this matter. The fact is, the Papacy has not been destroyed as they thought it would long before now. The 1260 years is well and truly concluded and the Papacy is still here. The tendency to keep changing the historical events and move the timeline forward to suit the age in which the commentator lived is a fair indication that there is something amiss in the historicist method of interpretation.




It is my understanding that the 1260 day/year prophesy did not specify the Papacy's end, Grattan Guinness' book Romanism and the Reformation mentions Mede's key to the Apocalypse on pge 72, Grattan mentions that 


> Mede did what no interpreter had previously done; he laid down the important principle, that, for the correct understanding of the Apocalypse, it is necessary, in the first place, to fix the order of its principal visions apart from the question of their interpretation. Accordingly Mede sought to exhibit the synchronism and the succession of these visions, or the order of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypse. Setting aside and ignoring for the time all question of the meaning of these prophecies, he
> endeavored to demonstrate from the visions themselves the position they occupy with reference to one another. Their mutual relations once proved serve as a most valuable clue to their significance.



pg73 continues...


> The first synchronism which Mede establishes is that of what he calls a "noble quaternion of prophecies," remarkable by reason of the equality of their times. First, of the woman remaining in the wilderness for three and a half times, or as it is declared in the prophecy, 1,260 days; second, of the beast whose deadly wound was healed ruling forty-two months; third, of the outer court of the temple trodden underfoot by the Gentiles for the same number of months; fourth, of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth 1,260 days.Mede points out that not only are these times equal, but they begin at the same period and end together, and must therefore synchronize throughout their course.



though Grattan errs on pg 73 in saying that...


> and extend to the era of the overthrow of those powers;


 The Interpretation of the 3 Unclean Spirits


> Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.


 which occurs after the events of the 1260 years predicts a resurgence in Romanism prior to the sounding of the 7th Trumpet as we are seeing in our day, so it shows that _*nothing is amiss with the historicist method of interpretation*_. 




armourbearer said:


> Suffice to say, the only hope for Israel is in the gospel, not in the law.



yes I did say


One Little Nail said:


> There is a future in gathering *into Christ *of the *Jews*


 into Christ would denote the Gospel, would it not? the context was Israel after the flesh though all Israel will be saved.




armourbearer said:


> I find your understanding of the two covenants to be very problematic, but it would take this discussion far afield to enter into it.



Ill mention it in one of the Covenant Theology threads & you can tell me what you thoughts are.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> That was just to show that if Old Testament Israel had the The Temple yet apostatized, so could the visible Church, neither were *Infallible*.



Two points. (1) Israel's final apostasy related to a development in the history of redemption, namely, the coming of the Messiah. The Messiah has come so far as the New Testament church is concerned, and Israel as a nation did not receive Him. That kind of apostasy is not possible for the New Testament church because Christ Himself is the foundation of the church. Were a church to destroy the foundation it would cease to be a church. (2) The New Testament church, as the inheritor of the promises of Israel, has promises guarding her against the judicial casting off which Israel underwent. For both reasons I think your parallel fails to apply in the same way to the New Testament church.



One Little Nail said:


> It is my understanding that the 1260 day/year prophesy did not specify the Papacy's end,



There are numerous references to Leo the Great (Magnus) in the historicist view, and about 1700 for the destruction of the Papacy. When that failed to materialise it was pushed back to different successors. The reason for the eschatological fervour and some of the political movements in Puritan times specifically related to the 1260 day-for-a-year scheme.

Premillennial historicists have revised the scheme in their own peculiar direction and it directly serves the premillennial cause. Once the postmillennial golden age did not come to pass, 19th century eschatologists naturally started looking for the advent to produce the golden age, and this is what enabled premillennial expectation to assume dominance.

We share the expectation of the Jews coming to Christ together with all nations. My main concern is to distinguish this from the belief that this evolves out of the "old covenant" of national Israel. Such a belief would entail return to the land and rebuilding of the temple, etc., for these were specific promises relating to the "old covenant."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

As I wrote above, I wonder about the wisdom of wading into the murky waters of a debate between a preterist/full-idealist and an historicist! This is the confusion I also spoke of which turns so many off to the topic of eschatology. It removes the relevance of the Bible’s eschatological statements and prophecies from our present times and either into the past, and a purely symbolic realm of “inspiration”, or a realm of one-to-one correspondence between past historical personages and/or events, both of which options deprive us of the riches of God’s word to us in our own time.

To note a couple of great weaknesses in the preterist interpretation of 2 Thess 2, compared to the standard amil view as posited by G.K. Beale, William Hendriksen, Dennis E. Johnson, Cornelis Venema, Anthony Hoekema, etc: 

In 1 Thess 4:15-17 we have a passage on the _parousia_ (v 15) – the [second] coming – of the Lord Jesus, which very few deny; and then in 1 Thess 5:2 Paul specifically calls this “the day of the Lord”. 

Going on to 2 Thess 1:7-10 we have him continuing to describe the return of Christ and His vengeance against the wicked. I suppose some die-hard preterists might deny this is what is spoken of, but a fair reading of the context shows a continuity in Paul’s discussion. Then he moves to 2 Thess 2:1 where he continues in the same vein, referring to “the coming [_parousia_] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him”, which is a repeat of 1 Thess 4:16-17 where the Lord descends from heaven and we are “caught up together” with Him and those who have already died in Him. 

So in the epistles to the Thessalonians we have Paul talking in 1:4 and 5 and in 2:1 and 2 of the return of Christ and the rapture of His saints at that time. He then addresses some false teaching that has been going around, namely that the return of Christ has already happened or is imminent, as two things must precede it, a great falling away from the faith and the revealing of the man of sin (or man of lawlessness).

Preterists will assert this refers strictly to the Jewish times, but we are not seeing here the day of vengeance on the already apostate Jewish nation about to be consummated in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (though that _is_ the punctuation mark of a major change of eras, from the Jewish times to that of the Gentiles), but another eschatological event, the _final_ days of vengeance when _all_ the wicked of the earth shall be destroyed and judged and the saints rescued and rewarded.

Even though – looking at the second weakness (besides the confusion regarding the parousia) – the temple is still standing, with very few years left of its existence, and some Messianic Jews still enamored of the worship in the Ichabod temple (from which the glory has departed once and forever), the Holy Spirit in writing of the man of sin, that “he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2:4), would never use the words “of God” to signify the temple left desolate, forever abandoned by Him. The only temple "of God" was now Jesus Christ.

This is an attempt of a minority report to circumvent proper exegesis and sound Biblical sense to foist its view on the church, and the church does suffer from such, as this passage and those of Revelation are meant to edify us as to the times we are in, which some do obfuscate with learnedness gone awry. I should note that relegating the fulfillment of 2 Thess 2 to the Jewish era and its termination actually enables the “consistent idealist” view of Revelation in being an ahistorical and strictly symbolic inspirational drama with no actual prophetic elements, as in prophesying of events to come.

Not that the “majority report” is always right – far from it – but in this instance it is, as seen in the quality of the argumentation of its proponents.

Concerning that which restrains the revelation of the Wicked, the view as held by Riddlebarger, the reason he turns his “suggestion” into a “fact” is because in the intervening pages he has developed his argument. I think it is quite feasible that the preaching of the gospel and the angel of Rev 20:1-3 are, respectively, the “what” and “he” that restrain.

Matthew, you say that “amillennial futurism” holds a “dismal prospect . . . for the spiritual temple of God”. But wait! the Prototype of the “spiritual temple” – who is Jesus Christ – suffered and died, and through death triumphed over death, it being unable to hold Him; and if we follow Him in our own witness against the powers of darkness and death through death and resurrection, you say this is “dismal”?

As the hymnist said,
In the cross of Christ I glory, 
towering o’er the wrecks of time; 
all the light of sacred story 
gathers round its head sublime.​ 
And if the church is to go through a furnace of purifying affliction for love of Christ’s cause, and for love of Him, we count this as far more than being mere “conquerors” over enemies and death, but as being united with Him in His sufferings, and then in the glory of His resurrection.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Rev. Winzer, 

Are there any detailed works on the subject which defend an interpretation such as yours which you might commend to us? I'm well familiar with the authors Steve cites and with a few of the more enthusiastic historicist works in Puritan times, but have not read much from within the Reformed historical corpus along the lines of what you are contending (which I'm sure is my own deficiency).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

With regard to “the day of the LORD” in the OT referring to the second coming (_parousia_) of our Lord Jesus Christ to gather His church to Himself and avenge their cruel mistreatment at the hands of the earth-only (having no interest in heaven and its God) wicked I would like to look at Isaiah 2. In verses 2 through 4 he conveys the word of the LORD showing “all nations” flowing to the house of the God of Jacob, and “many people” seek His teaching of His ways, His law, and His word. This is understood to refer to the nations coming to the house of God in the days of the New Covenant. 

The focus of the prophecy shifts toward the end of the chapter; in verse 10 we see the warning to men to fear the LORD and the glory of His majesty, and then he says,
“The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the LORD shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low” (2:11,12)​ 
This is apparently spoken concerning mankind generally. E.J. Young in his commentary on Isaiah, says,
_a day_ — The word is prominent. A day is coming, and so the present order will be overthrown. But does not a day, in distinction from night, bring the light of blessing? This day, however, belongs to the Lord of hosts. It is the time of world judgment, adumbrations or foreshadowings of which are to be found in the earlier judgments of Yahweh, such as the exile and the first advent. Other prophets had already mentioned the day, but it is in Isaiah that the concept obtains a force not found previously. It is pictured as a storm which sweeps over everything that in the opinion of man was lifted up and exalted. (_The Book of Isaiah_, Vol 1, Chapters 1-18; p 124)​ 
The prophet then speaks of judgment in local terms, and in verses 19-21 judgment is again depicted as universal,
And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,
and the haughtiness of men shall be made low:
and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. . .
And they shall go into the holes of the rocks,
and into the caves of the earth,
for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty,
when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold,
which they made each one for himself to worship,
to the moles and to the bats;
To go into the clefts of the rocks,
and into the tops of the ragged rocks,
for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty,
when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth (Isa 2:17,19-21)​ 
Young links this passage with the apostle John’s vision in Revelation 6:15-17, when the Lord Christ is revealed form heaven on the great day of His appearing,
“And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand” (Rev 6:14-17)​ 
I have greater confidence in Young’s understanding and exegesis than those who deny Isaiah is speaking – ultimately – of “that great day of God Almighty” (Rev 16:14), when His vengeance is loosed and His bride safe in His arms at last.

Isaiah also speaks of scenes beyond the resurrection and the judgment, when in 65:17 and 18 he says,
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create:
for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.​ 
Which John again refers to in Rev 21:1-2,
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.​ 
What poverty it creates in New Testament hermeneutics when men seek to strip away the visions of the future God’s OT prophets were given to see, and to give to His people to enliven their hope, relegating them instead strictly to the Jewish era.


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Are there any detailed works on the subject which defend an interpretation such as yours which you might commend to us? I'm well familiar with the authors Steve cites and with a few of the more enthusiastic historicist works in Puritan times, but have not read much from within the Reformed historical corpus along the lines of what you are contending (which I'm sure is my own deficiency).



Chris, you might be interested in G. I Williamson's study of eschatology, written from an optimistic amillennial point of view. It is available here: http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/EschatologyPages.pdf. There is also Samuel G. Craig's "Jesus as He was and is," which contains a chapter entitled Jesus as the Coming One. B. B. Warfield wrote a study on the Prophecies of St. Paul and is included in the volume entitled "Biblical Doctrines."

The view I hold is not based on seeking specific events in the history of Israel, so I would not classify myself as a consistent preterist. I only identify with the exegesis which sees the development of the man of sin in relation to the Jewish nation. The conjectures related to the Roman empire/emperor or the destruction of Jerusalem are foreign to the apostle's theological viewpoint and message, as far as I can see. On the other hand, the apostasy and casting out of of national Israel is a continual theme of the New Testament, and the change of economy in the covenant of grace was a major factor in the apostle's ministry to the Gentiles. Hence I see the apostle as referring to a covenant reality rather than the AD 70 event.


----------



## MW

This will have to be my final reply.

1. It is claimed that a preterist view "removes the relevance of the Bible’s eschatological statements and prophecies from our present times." This could only be possible if one denied the normative value of redemptive history for those upon whom the ends of the world are come, 1 Cor. 10:6, 11. The fact is, because the correct interpretation of the passage is tied to the redemptive historical context it provides normative principles for evaluating the true nature of apostasy within the Christian church and for distinguishing the true from the false church. If one ignores the redemptive-historical context, and places the manifestation in the future, there are no concrete markers for identifying the expected manifestation. A myriad of contenders might fulfil the vacant position.

Conversely, the present relevance to the Thesssalonians is apparent throughout the passage, vv. 2, 5-7, 15. The attempt to place the manifestation into the far future only serves to negate the immediate relevance to the Thessalonian church to whom the letter was written.

2. In these discussions there is often an appeal made by Steve Rafalsky to "the standard amil view." I am more interested in weighing arguments than counting heads. However, this exclusivist appeal has been made so often that it requires a response. The amillennial view is defined by the fact it is neither pre-millennial nor post-millennial. The millennium of Rev. 20 is a present reality by virtue of the fact that the Redeemer is exalted above all things and rules all things for the good of His church. This is "the standard amil view." There is difference of opinion on how matters will fall out within the present age. There is no "standard" view on these things. As Oswald T. Allis has pointed out (Prophecy and the Church, 237), "Amillennialists ... deny that either in the Gospels or in the Epistles is there provision for such a millennium. They may take an optimistic view of the future of the Church on earth, or they may agree with Premillennialists that evil will be at work in the world, even increasingly active, up to the very times of Christ's coming."

John Murray wrote an article on Amillennialism for the Presbyterian Guardian. He stated, "The amillenarian does not take upon himself to deny but that in the purpose and providence of God there may be a period of unprecedented prosperity for the church of God upon earth prior to the Lord's advent. What he says is that he does not find in Scripture evidence sufficient to warrant his believing in a millennium before the end of the world."

In "A Study of Biblical Eschatology," G. I. Williamson commented, "What does the future hold? It is our conviction that it holds no such gloomy and pessimistic a scenario as many imagine."

Many amillennial interpreters of Romans 11 and kindred passages have espoused what has been called "the Puritan Hope." There is nothing in the amillennial scheme itself which requires one to be less than hopeful about the mission of the church in the world. What God has done in the past He may yet do again. Let us be the Lord's remembrancers, and often call upon Him, and labour fervently for Him. Who knows what a day of refreshing may bring!

3. Reference has been made to 1 Thess. 4 and 5 for understanding the day of the Lord in 2 Thess 2 to refer specifically to the second coming of Christ. Such a limitation is not warranted by the text. The second coming undoubtedly forms a part of the day of the Lord -- the climactic and consummating part of it -- but it is not limited to it. We live in the day of the Lord, in which we enjoy the blessed effects of His first coming and await the consummation at His second coming. A part of the day of the Lord included the final administration to national Israel in mercy and judgment, and the apostle lived and ministered in this transitional time. The developments in relation to Israel should not be forcibly removed from the eschatological nuances which the term holds, especially when it is considered that the Old Testament "day of the Lord" specifically and contextually related to the covenanted nation.

Moreover, there is nothing in the apostle's words in 1 Thess. 4 and 5, which places the second coming in a distant future so far as his own personal expectation was concerned. He could speak of "we which are alive and remain." He obviously did not mean that he would certainly be alive at the second coming, but neither did he exclude it so far as his own living vantage point was concerned. If this passage is decisive for understanding the day of the Lord in 2 Thess 2 it would only serve to undermine the futurist interpretation.

4. The Thessalonian's alarm has been painted as if the believers of that time shared present day dispensational concerns of being "left behind" at the second coming of Christ. This gives the dispensational view too much credit. In light of chapter 1 it is obvious that their concern lay in a different direction, namely, that their current tribulations were somehow connected with the terrible day of the Lord as taught by the prophets. As observed by Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy and the Church, 197): "It seems quite probable that the immature converts at Thessalonica were troubled by the thought that the persecutions they were suffering were but the precursors of the day of the Lord which they very likely envisaged as a time of suffering and terror (Joel 2.2, Amos 5.18)." The apostle did not write to make them "rapture ready," but to assure them that their persecutors would meet with vengeance.

5. Finally, when the New Testament is taken as a whole, and its statements relative to the apostasy and casting out of national Israel are carefully placed within their historical context, it is natural to understand that the apostle Paul was speaking about the days of vengeance on the persecutor, Israel. He had already mentioned this in 1 Thess. 2. It forms a part of the "mystery" which he dealt with in Romans 9-11. It is seen in his deliberate choice to turn away from the Jews and to preach to the Gentiles in the Book of Acts. It follows the clear denunciations which our Lord had made concerning the rejection and casting out of Israel. The apostle directed his words to first century Christians who lived in transitional times when the old covenant church was on its last legs and the new covenant church had the baton in its hand ready to run its course. He did not write to enable dispensation-type speculation about the "last days."


----------



## BryanW

arap said:


> It also gives too much credence that Islam's prophecies are true.


 Are Islam's "prophecies" really prophecies? Or are they just a twisting of scripture that says the opposite of what Jesus taught his followers and what was revealed to John on Patmos? The Koran is the anti-bible.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew – thanks for the gracious response. I will seek to (as far as I am able) briefly answer you point by point.

1. There is more to the Bible’s eschatological statements than simply providing “normative principles” if we take said statements in their “redemptive historical context”. At least you are consistent with your form of idealism.

Clearly my understanding of the “redemptive historical context” is not akin to yours and G.I.’s, for it does not mandate the limiting of the “man of sin” and the “falling away” (_apostasia_) to the first century with the Jewish state and destruction of the temple. 

Part of the second epistle’s relevance to the Thessalonian church was the correcting of the false teachings circulating among them concerning the past or present and ongoing occurrence of the final _parousia_ of Christ, for he assures them two things must precede His coming: the revealing of the man of sin and the falling away; only after these two signs should one think of the return of Christ as imminent.

2. With regard to my saying, “the standard amil view” : I have often phrased this the _contemporary_ standard amil view, nor is it determined by mere numbers, but by the cumulative_ excellence_ (admittedly a subjective assessment) of the wise reflection and argumentation on the topic, taking into account modern studies in the field. Eschatology is perhaps the one area in theology which is completely open to change and development.

Both Oswald T. Allis and Geerhardus Vos, speak with regard to increasing understanding in this area,
[The prophecy of Antichrist] “belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (Geerhardus Vos, _The Pauline Eschatology_, p. 133)​ 
O.T. Allis in _Prophecy and the Church_, wrote similarly to Vos when he said,
“The usual view on this subject [‘the intelligibility of prophecy’] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God ‘establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,’ that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest.” (p 25)​ 
You quote O.T. Allis on some among amillenarians taking an “optimistic view of the future of the Church on earth”, but I think fail to give the nuance he does as to their identity. On page 6 of the book you cite he writes,
“One point is especially to be stressed in this connection, for the reason that it is of fundamental importance to the problems to be discussed in this volume. All Amillennialists of today [he wrote the book in 1945 –SMR], whether they hold with Augustine or with Kliefoth, are in a position to maintain the coming of the Lord is imminent; and some of them take the pessimistic view of the future of the church on earth—that the love of many will grow cold, and that evil men will grow worse and worse—which is characteristic of the premillennial view. The great exception is the Whitbyans, whom in accordance with customary usage we shall call Postmillenarians.”​ 
He repeats this distinction on page 167 (ibid), saying,
“If, according to the Postmillenarian or Whitbyan view, the millennium is wholly future and is to precede the advent, it is absurd, they [the premils –SMR] tell us, to speak of expecting or watching for the coming of the Lord. This argument is not without weight. Amillennialists feel this objection to the Postmillenarian view quite as strongly as do Premillenarians.”​ 
[Daniel Whitby was an earlier developer of what is now known as Postmillennialism.]

In Allis’ time postmils were associated with amils (both believing Christ’s return would be post the millennium), and thankfully (for this discussion) he distinguishes between the two types he includes among the amils.

In the quote of John Murray you neglected to cite another of his sayings in that article:
“The amillenarian, however, does not find warrant for believing that one of those events that must occur before the Lord’s advent is a millennium of universal prosperity for the church of God. And so on that particular point he differs from the postmillenarian.”​ 
When I use the term “_contemporary_ standard amil view” or something similar, I refer to men and their works like,

G.K. Beale, _New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation_; _The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: 1-2 Thessalonians_; _Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament_; _Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation_; _The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John_; _John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation_; and _The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God_.
Dennis E. Johnson, _Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation_
Cornelis P. Venema, _The Promise of the Future_
William Hendriksen, _More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation_; and _Three Lectures on the Book of Revelation_
Michael Wilcock, _The Message of Revelation_
Richard Bauckham, _The Climax of Prophecy_; and _The Theology of the Book of Revelation_
Kim Riddlebarger, _The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist_; and, _A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times_
David J. Engelsma, _Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of _Reformed_ Amillennialism _(A shortened online version); and _The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government_ (article)
Stephen S. Smalley, _The Revelation To John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse_
Vern Poythress, _The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation_
R.C.H. Lenski, _The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation_
Stuart Olyott, _Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained_
Samuel E. Waldron, _The End Times Made Simple_
Anthony Hoekema, _The Bible and the Future_
Simon J. Kistemaker, _New Testament Commentary: Revelation_
Arturo Azurdia, _An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (81 MP3 sermons)_
Leon Morris, _The Book of Revelation (Revised Edition)_
G.B. Caird, _The Revelation of Saint John_
Sam Storms, _Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative _

3. I agree with your first paragraph in this section, save to say that – as I have shown above – the OT “the day of the LORD” sometimes pointed to things other than dealings with “the covenanted [OT] nation” exclusively. 

With regard to the second paragraph of this section, I agree, Paul did not exclude the possibility that the events he spoke of in 2 Thess 2 could develop in his own time. In either event, it was still future, whether near or far.

4. I agree that fear of the terror of their persecutors [preceding the supposedly “at hand” 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] coming] were at least part of their false thinking, but others have pointed out that other false teachings may have been referred to; in 2 Tim 2:17, 18 it is said of “Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” 

5. You say of Paul, “He did not write to enable dispensation-type speculation about the ‘last days.’ ” Agreed, yet he also exercised prophetic gifting as the Spirit of Christ spoke through him. You liken the eclectic amil futurist understanding to “dispensation-type speculation — and I will grant you some partial and distant similarity in the two, and perhaps it will be this that shall draw souls from the premil camp to the amil, as it does more justice to the Biblical data than their own views and the preterist, postmil, and historicist takes. 

The Dispensational view is very dangerous, and with a new version of the _Left Behind_ movie about to come out that danger increases. For many shall think, “Well, I can indulge the flesh and repent and turn to Christ later, for after the rapture I will have a second chance to seek and find Him with the ‘Tribulation saints’.” Alas, those who die in such delusion shall awake in Hell.


----------



## Conner

My understanding is that there have been many in the reformed tradition who did see Islam and Mohammed being prophesied as an eschatological figure (the beast of revelation 13) as well as the papacy and the pope (the beast of revelation 17). (See Edwards "history of redemption". BTW has anybody read Goodwins commentary on Revelation? I myself tend toward the partial preterist view espoused by men like Bahnsen and Gentry.


----------



## Peairtach

BryanW said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also gives too much credence that Islam's prophecies are true.
> 
> 
> 
> Are Islam's "prophecies" really prophecies? Or are they just a twisting of scripture that says the opposite of what Jesus taught his followers and what was revealed to John on Patmos? The Koran is the anti-bible.
Click to expand...


You'd probably be better starting another thread on such a divergent topic, Bryan


----------



## MW

Regarding Steve Rafalsky's "list," Very Poythress has espoused the optimistic view, and credits Richard Gaffin with the same view. In "2 Thessalonians 1 supports Amillennialism," Poythress wrote in relation to postmillennialism, "In my opinion, it is possible that this sort of thing might happen. In fact, because I am awed by the power of God for salvation in the gospel (Rom 1:16), I am optimistic about the future. Christ may return very soon, but if he does not return in the next hundred years, we may see a great harvest for the gospel. Some other amillennialists display the same optimism. [Cf. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Pstmillennialism,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 201, 208, 210.]"


----------



## MW

Continuing to examine the "list," Kim Riddlebarger is another amillennialist who maintains optimism in relation to the calling of the Jews. He states, "Is there a future for ethnic Israel? Paul's answer was yes. And the presence of a believing remnant was proof. But the future salvation of Israel is not connected to a future millennial kingdom. It is connected to the end of the age. When all Israel is saved, the resurrection is at hand." Case for Amillennialism, 194.

Michael Horton takes the same view in "The Christian Faith," p. 950: "While Israel is the church and the church is Israel, this spiritual nation will be enlarged in the last days -- this time, with a great influx of ethnic Jews."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

When Poythress says, “if [Christ] does not return in the next hundred years, we may see a great harvest for the gospel”, I do not disagree with that kind of optimism. It is a hope of mine, and constitutes part of the rationale for why I write and seek to publish: when I bear testimony to the Kingdom of God and of His Christ, while accepting the possibility of paying dearly for this testimony the world hates, I do hope it will bear great fruit. I am not under any illusion it _must_ be so, but I do hope it. This is optimism in my book, even if I see the world going from bad to worse – the Lord’s net may gather in many fish while the storm rages, and before it hits full force.

The same for the Jews, my people according to the flesh, and many of my family. Part of the purpose I am preparing and polishing my little booklet, _A Poet Arises In Israel_, is to provoke a clash with the rabbinate of world Jewry, that the Lord’s elect among them may take notice, and revisit the claims of their Messiah, the inertia of millennia broken by the violence of it. Do I do this in vain? No, my hope is that the Lord may bring multitudes from the bloodline of Abraham to the new temple and to the glorious High Priest within it who also reigns as King. _Must_ it be so? no, I do not think so, but I may hope and labor that it will. It is in His hands. I keep in mind the words of the hymn by John Newton:
Thou art coming to a King,
Large petitions with thee bring​ 
This tension between seeing the world go increasingly bad, and the turning of many souls from the power of Satan unto God, that they may be cleansed and glorified in Him, is not comprised of incongruity, but may exist as an antinomy.


----------



## One Little Nail

I would also venture to say that the little horn that comes out of the beast of Daniel is one & the same with the image of the beast in Rev Chap 13.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Hey Steve, I blog on a site that features JW's articles & I am like minded - Religious Humanism is devouring the globe & has taken hold of the pagan papacy..... Not sure where Islam fits (a mere footnote, I guess)


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Stand Up For TruthÂ |Â American Clarion


----------



## AJ Castellitto

But I'm really in over my head on this... I always saw end times as a great falling away & world wide persacution of the true church from powers & principalities of the age - with a remnant of Jews returning unto Christ.... I kind of feel the beginning of the end is upon us..... Don't know what the duration will be & what it will ultimately look like


----------



## JimmyH

An interesting ........ to me ...... sermon series on The Book Of Revelation by D.A. Carson preached in 1994. I recommend listening to all 5, but the two , Rage, Rage Against The Church, and Anti Christ and the False Prophet are pertinent to this thread. CCFC 1994 Plenary Series | SermonAudio.com


----------



## One Little Nail

Were you able to discern what position Dr Carson takes on the book of Revelation


----------



## JimmyH

One Little Nail said:


> Were you able to discern what position Dr Carson takes on the book of Revelation



Interesting question and I'm a bit confused by his presentation. Each sermon is over an hour and I listened to them all but not continuously, so I cannot say 100%. At first I thought him a partial preterist but he seems to favor a late date for the book so that is not possible. In his latest edition of "An Introduction To The New Testament." he addresses the 'preterist approach', the 'historical approach', the 'futurist approach', and the 'idealist approach', and then goes on to say, "Along with several recent commentators, we find some truth in all four of these views. Yet it is the futurist approach that comes closest to doing justice to the nature and purposes of Revelation. As we have seen, Revelation adapts and modifies the apocalyptic perspective. Jewish apocalyptic writers projected themselves back into time so that they could describe the imminent breaking into history of God's eternal kingdom as the culmination of history. By writing in his own name, John discards the historical survey and confronts his readers with an elaborate vision of the establishment of Christ's reign in history. Revelation is about eschatology, not history." You should listen to the sermons. He is a very eloquent and gifted preacher ........ In my humble opinion.


----------



## One Little Nail

Thanks Jimmy, There's no doubt hes a very eloquent and gifted preacher, though I'll just have to agree to disagree on his views of Revelation,



JimmyH said:


> he addresses the 'preterist approach', the 'historical approach', the 'futurist approach', and the 'idealist approach', and then goes on to say, "Along with several recent commentators, we find some truth in all four of these views. Yet it is the futurist approach that comes closest to doing justice to the nature and purposes of Revelation



with the Historicist view there is still some aspects yet to be fulfilled, no doubt, though I'd hardly say this in anyway supports the _futurist_ scheme, which I find most unpalatable as it _essentially_ being a bastard child of the Jesuit counter Reformation,
the fact that so many "Protestant" scholars of today hold some form of it shows the great inroads that have been made. 


Albert Barnes Commentaries on the Book of Daniel & the Revelation ought to be read by any person interested in Prophecy & its interpretation as an introduction to the subject, particularly if you can get one that has the special supplement which is helpful in
getting an understanding of the principles & tenets of Historicism. Unfortunately these links don't contain the supplement. 


Notes on the Book of Daniel US Edition

Notes Critical, Explanatory and Practical on the Book of Daniel, Volume 1 UK Edition

Notes Critical, Explanatory and Practical on the Book of Daniel, Volume 2 UK Edition

Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Book of Revelation US Edition 

Notes Explanatory and Practical on the Book of Revelation UK Edition


----------



## earl40

..


----------



## Fender tele 67

Pope Pontifex Maximus blasphemed Christ with his title. 

"And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" Hebrews 10:11-12

So if the papacy allows this, I would not doubt that antichrist could use this to his advantage.


----------



## Peairtach

If the Papacy is the Antichrist, and I believe it myself, what's the significance of that, and is it good to "obsess" about it?

Probably for another thread.


----------



## Fender tele 67

Israel has been judged as a covenant people, and she is no longer a nation in covenant with God, there is no possibility of it happening a second time. The church is recognised as the Israel of God and the inheritor of the promises.

Hi Matthew, I am new to reformed theology does your statement here what I call replacement theology? From what I have understood the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does not hold this view. Does it vary in reformed churches?


----------



## MW

Fender tele 67 said:


> Hi Matthew, I am new to reformed theology does your statement here what I call replacement theology?



"Replacement theology" is a pejorative term used by dispensationalists. In Romans 11 there is no replacement of the organism but a cutting off and engrafting of branches into a single organism which has existed from the beginning.


----------



## One Little Nail

Peairtach said:


> If the Papacy is the Antichrist, and I believe it myself, what's the significance of that, and is it good to "obsess" about it?
> 
> Probably for another thread.




Well this thread is as good as any other seeing it is dealing with the subject of the Roman Pope being the Antichrist, *IF* the fallen bishoprick of Rome or papacy is *THE* Antichrist there is much importance & significance in the matter.

It still has bearing in many regards today, there is still the matter of prophecy needing to be fulfilled, the destruction of the city of rome, mystery babylon or the seat of the beast, & the ongoing destruction of Antichrist's Kingdom through the preaching of the word or "breath of his mouth" and his ultimate & final destruction at The Coming of Our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ "with the brightness of his coming" 2 Thess 2:8.

You have the small matter of ecclesiastical relations, the _antichristian,__fallen_ & _reprobate_ "catholic church" ought to be continually marked as such by the True Churches of Christ & separated from, with no ecumenical dialogue or relations practised, or in other words Churches ought to be thoroughly _Protestant_.

Because the Prophetic Promise in 2 Thess 2:8 has the Antichrist's Kingdom withered by the preaching of the Word of God,
there needs to be a wholesale turning back of the Church's of Christ to the Reformation or Received Text & a forsaking of 
the Vatican or ecumenical Critical texts to best bring this about, now can you see why there has been such an attack on
The Scriptures by Antichrist & his jesuit henchmen through the use of Higher & Lower Textual Criticism, plus also a need for the restoration of the preaching of the True Scriptual, Protestant & Reformed Doctrines of the blessed Reformation.

In Relation to Civil Government, thoroughly Christian Constitutions need to be put into place, with The Lord Jesus Christ acknowledged His Laws established, *ALL Ten Commandments * Theonomically enforced in the Light of The New Testament revelation & general equity, with Christian Magistrates raised up who ought to be subject to a Scriptual & Religious Subscription Test, & the Cancelling, Abolishing & Annulment of all Romish Vatican Concordant's, as well as the abolition of vatican romish civil statute canon law or _Admiralty_ Law & the re-establishment of a Scripturally mandated Christian Common Law, essentially no more Fornicating between the kings of the earth & the harlot.

Also a reintroduction of a Scriptural precious metal backed non-fiat currency & the abolition of romish controlled "Central" banking system which is used to enslave, impoverish, defraud, plunder & reign over the nations & the kings of the earth, through which merchants of the earth are waxed rich, because according to prophesy Rev 17 & 18 the woman which thou (John) sawest is that great city (Rome).


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Robert,

Are you channeling Lyman Stowe here?


----------



## One Little Nail

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Robert,
> 
> Are you channeling Lyman Stowe here?



Don't know who that is?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

This:

https://archive.org/stream/whatiscomingiswo00stow/whatiscomingiswo00stow_djvu.txt


----------



## One Little Nail

Never heard of him but he sounds like an intelligent gentleman & it looks like an interesting book!

What is coming : is a wonderful exposition of the prophecies and comparison with ancient and modern historical and political events : together with an ample, though concise history of money from King Solomon's time to the present (1896)


----------



## Peairtach

One Little Nail said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Papacy is the Antichrist, and I believe it myself, what's the significance of that, and is it good to "obsess" about it?
> 
> Probably for another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this thread is as good as any other seeing it is dealing with the subject of the Roman Pope being the Antichrist, *IF* the fallen bishoprick of Rome or papacy is *THE* Antichrist there is much importance & significance in the matter.
> 
> It still has bearing in many regards today, there is still the matter of prophecy needing to be fulfilled, the destruction of the city of rome, mystery babylon or the seat of the beast, & the ongoing destruction of Antichrist's Kingdom through the preaching of the word or "breath of his mouth" and his ultimate & final destruction at The Coming of Our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ "with the brightness of his coming" 2 Thess 2:8.
> 
> You have the small matter of ecclesiastical relations, the _antichristian,__fallen_ & _reprobate_ "catholic church" ought to be continually marked as such by the True Churches of Christ & separated from, with no ecumenical dialogue or relations practised, or in other words Churches ought to be thoroughly _Protestant_.
> 
> Because the Prophetic Promise in 2 Thess 2:8 has the Antichrist's Kingdom withered by the preaching of the Word of God,
> there needs to be a wholesale turning back of the Church's of Christ to the Reformation or Received Text & a forsaking of
> the Vatican or ecumenical Critical texts to best bring this about, now can you see why there has been such an attack on
> The Scriptures by Antichrist & his jesuit henchmen through the use of Higher & Lower Textual Criticism, plus also a need for the restoration of the preaching of the True Scriptual, Protestant & Reformed Doctrines of the blessed Reformation.
> 
> In Relation to Civil Government, thoroughly Christian Constitutions need to be put into place, with The Lord Jesus Christ acknowledged His Laws established, *ALL Ten Commandments * Theonomically enforced in the Light of The New Testament revelation & general equity, with Christian Magistrates raised up who ought to be subject to a Scriptual & Religious Subscription Test, & the Cancelling, Abolishing & Annulment of all Romish Vatican Concordant's, as well as the abolition of vatican romish civil statute canon law or _Admiralty_ Law & the re-establishment of a Scripturally mandated Christian Common Law, essentially no more Fornicating between the kings of the earth & the harlot.
> 
> Also a reintroduction of a Scriptural precious metal backed non-fiat currency & the abolition of romish controlled "Central" banking system which is used to enslave, impoverish, defraud, plunder & reign over the nations & the kings of the earth, through which merchants of the earth are waxed rich, because according to prophesy Rev 17 & 18 the woman which thou (John) sawest is that great city (Rome).
Click to expand...


Much of this is way beyond what you can gather from believing that the Scriptures teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. Not all - e.g. the Westminster divines - who believed this were theonomists, for instance.

Many who do not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, or even an antichrist, have any time for the doctrines of Rome, because there is enough in Scripture to teach them, although they are not sure of, or have a different notion of, this eschatalogical question.

When is it a good idea to tell another brother that you believe the Pope's the Antichrist? I have found this to be much misunderstood and largely unprofitable unless you have much time to explain yourself.

Should "the Pope's the Antichrist" be a good way of approaching Roman Catholics evangelistically, or is it "strong meat" that should be left out until later?


----------



## Calvin Cormier

Good question Peairtach.

“Should “the Pope’s the Antichrist” be a good way of approaching Roman Catholics evangelistically, or is it “strong meat” that should be left out until later?”

*If it is true,* then it is of great importance to state that up front.

From the perspective of an historicist, it is *absolutely true* … he is either the first beast or the second of Revelation … I personally believe he is the second or False Prophet … the word “vatic” means prophet.

If the mark of the beast described in Revelation being on the *right hand* and/or *forehead *is Rome’s “sign of the cross” always displayed with right hand and placed on the forehead of the infant followers of the beast at their baptism and upon the forehead of the adult followers of the beast on Ash Wednesdays, then they are lost and should immediately be evangelistically warned “to come out of her”.

I believe it was around 300AD that the “sign of the cross” was introduced, along with bells, candles, icons of Mary and other Romish practices.


----------



## Peairtach

Calvin Cormier said:


> Good question Peairtach.
> 
> “Should “the Pope’s the Antichrist” be a good way of approaching Roman Catholics evangelistically, or is it “strong meat” that should be left out until later?”
> 
> *If it is true,* then it is of great importance to state that up front.
> 
> From the perspective of an historicist, it is *absolutely true* … he is either the first beast or the second of Revelation … I personally believe he is the second or False Prophet … the word “vatic” means prophet.
> 
> If the mark of the beast described in Revelation being on the *right hand* and/or *forehead *is Rome’s “sign of the cross” always displayed with right hand and placed on the forehead of the infant followers of the beast at their baptism and upon the forehead of the adult followers of the beast on Ash Wednesdays, then they are lost and should immediately be evangelistically warned “to come out of her”.
> 
> I believe it was around 300AD that the “sign of the cross” was introduced, along with bells, candles, icons of Mary and other Romish practices.



Anyone who trusts in works' righteousness for salvation rather than Christ alone is lost.

A Reformed person wouldn't need to hold to your particular view of the beasts of Revelation, Calvin, to know that, or to point out to Romanists the error of their beliefs and ways.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------

