Papacy = Anti-Christ and Preterism

Status
Not open for further replies.

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Can one believe the Papacy is the Biblical anti-Christ, and still have an orthodox/partial preterist interpretation and approach to Revelation, the sermon on the mount, etc.?
 
I don't see why not, but it's usually going to be rooted in the historic Puritan non-preterist understanding of 2 Thess 2. Read Promise Three of a series of articles by Postmillennialis Errol Hullse entitled The Puritans and the Promises". In it you'll see him defend the traditional postmill position that the Pope is the future Antichrist. It's not in-depth at all, but it's online for free :) and a place to start... Notice that he does have historicist overtones to this section, but in the conclusion he states that J. Marcellus Kik and John Jefferson Davis properly interpreted Matt 24 and the book of Revelation. They give preterist interpretations. Hope this helps get you on the road. I'm somewhat partial to this interpretation. I've never been comfortable with Mathison's interpretation of this passage in his book "Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope". Gentry does much better in "He Shall Have Dominion" in my opinion, but it can still feel strained at times.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

[Edited on 8-19-2005 by rgrove]

[Edited on 8-19-2005 by rgrove]
 
If you want to get a standard orthodox Puritan historicist interpretation of NT prophetical passages such as Matthew 24 (primarily focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem), and 2 Thessalonians 2/Revelation (identifying the Papacy as Antichrist), Matthew Henry is a good place to start.

I am reading James Durham's Commentary on Revelation now, which is, I believe the best historicist Puritan/Covenanter treatment on Revelation.
 
Does not the partial-Preterist understanding typically take Nero to have been the Anti-Christ? From the little that I've studied these issues, I got the impression that was one of the differences between the two views (i.e. Historicist and partial-Preterist), naturally following from their broader framework and nature.
 
I believe that is correct, Chris. There is overlap between historicism and partial preterism in that both are usually associated with postmillennialism and both attribute some or all of Matthew 24 to the destruction of Jerusalem, but as to the identity of Antichrist, I think your distinction is correct.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Does not the partial-Preterist understanding typically take Nero to have been the Anti-Christ? From the little that I've studied these issues, I got the impression that was one of the differences between the two views (i.e. Historicist and partial-Preterist), naturally following from their broader framework and nature.

I take Nero out of lack for better options, but if someone could show me another first century guy, that's cool, too.

Preterists like RC Sproul argue, not necessarily that Nero was antichrist, but that given ancient historiography and hermeneutics, many in the ancient world would have seen Nero = antichrist.

Therefore, Sproul would reason (and I would agree with him), Nero is antichrist.

That distinction is often missed in the debates.
 
Isn't there a difference between the AntiChrist and the Beast? Or are we using these terms interchangably?

Does the AntiChrist= The Beast= The Man of Lawlessness?
Does the False Prophet=Mystery Babylon=The woman that sits on many waters= Ancient Jerusalem?

[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Slippery]
 
Historicists generally interpret Matt 24 as refering to the destruction of Jerusalem, some have even attempted to connect those events to part of the prophecy of the Apocalypse though most take the orthodox late date of Rev. and believe the prophecies refer to Domation onward.
 
Originally posted by Slippery
Isn't there a difference between the AntiChrist and the Beast? Or are we using these terms interchangably?

Does the AntiChrist= The Beast= The Man of Lawlessness?
Does the False Prophet=Mystery Babylon=The woman that sits on many waters= Ancient Jerusalem?

[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Slippery]

I do not see them as necessarily synonymous.
 
Preterists DO NOT see Nero as the Anti-Christ. Read anything by DeMar, etc. and you will see this to be the case. There is no exegetical connection between the Beast of Revelation and the Anti-Christ of the NT epistles whatsoever, in my opinion, hence the question.

The Anti-Christ is seen to be either the Roman magistrate or the Jewish religious authorities (perhaps a specific person) during the latter half of the 1st Century A.D. by every Preterist I've read.
 
I think the case can be made for the antichrist and the false prophet being synonymous. The antichrist obviously denies Christ, and the false prophet promotes worship to anything and anyone other than Christ. Using the term antichrist in the strict sense of the word, I think the false prophet suits the character perfectly.
And Gabrielle I do agree with you, that the antichrist was the Jewish religious authorities, and every heresy factory of the first century that willingly opposed the gospel.

I don't think a typical unbeliever could be the antichrist in a strict definition of the term. I believe the unbeliever has to willingly, with premeditation oppose Christ, by impeding and attempting to impede the progress of the Gospel and the Church. Only the first century Jewish religious establishment and the types of Cerinthus, and those wannabe fraudulent Messiahs, that willingly lead people astray by seeking to appropriate the prophecies of the Messiah to themselves.
 
Based on my study of Demar and Gentry, Gabe is correct. Anti-Christ does not equal the beast (Nero). They are two distinct persons/entities.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
My name is Gabriel, not Gabrielle. I'm a man.

z7shysterical.gif
 
Originally posted by Preach
Based on my study of Demar and Gentry, Gabe is correct. Anti-Christ does not equal the beast (Nero). They are two distinct persons/entities.

Indeed. And, since I hold to Demar's position on prophetical interpretation almost 100%, I don't see any reason why I can't be confessional and believe the Papacy is the Anti-Christ, were I convinced to believe so.

Am I right? :candle:
 
There may be some confusion on vocabulary here. Most people understand Paul's "Man of sin" to be the Anti-Christ. I believe this is who people are talking about, but using antichrist and man of lawlessness" synonymously as is frequently done. But the connection between the two isn't necessarily the case. I'm persuaded 2 Thess 2 is one of the most difficult eschatalogical passages in the NT. As a result I waffle back and forth depending on time of day and position of the moon/sun/stars on what might be the best interpretation. I do believe that the historic Puritan understanding of it as being the office of the Papacy has a lot of merit. I also fee that a preterist understanding of it as being Nero has a lot of merit. Gentry gave it a lot of attention in "He Shall Have Dominion" and I felt did pretty well with the passage. So we have John's antichrist and his beast and Paul's man of lawlessness. They must all be carefully evaluated in their own contexts.

BTW, the first edition of "He Shall Have Dominion" is online here

[Edited on 8-19-2005 by rgrove]
 
Thanks for the clarification, gentlemen. It's been a while since I read Gentry on eschatology.

Is there a chart somewhere that lays out the identity of each Scriptural term currently under discussion?

I hold with John Calvin (writing in respect to 2 Thess. 2):

It was no better than an old wife´s fable that was contrived respecting Nero, that he was carried up from the world, destined to return again to harass the Church f16 by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. f17 Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God´s temple"”which we see accomplished in Popery.
 
Not that I'm aware of Andrew. Nice project for you to do and share with the rest of us lazier types when you're done! :D
 
Originally posted by rgrove
Not that I'm aware of Andrew. Nice project for you to do and share with the rest of us lazier types when you're done! :D

:lol: I would rather not build on any man's foundation (hoping it's already been done somewhere)!
 
Eroll Hulse explains the Puritan position this way:

"4. This antichrist was already in preparation at the time of Paul´s writing. For the mystery already operates (to gar musterion êdê energeitai).What was this power or principle already at work? In his letter to the Galatians Paul expressed his astonishment that so soon there was defection from justification by faith alone to dependence on works. In place of a free gift there is engendered dependence on a system of works which depend on the mass administered by priests, auricular confession, the doctrine of purgatory and merit associated with celibacy, the latter described by Paul as a doctrine of devils (1 Tim 4:1,3)."
 
Originally posted by rgrove
Eroll Hulse explains the Puritan position this way:

"4. This antichrist was already in preparation at the time of Paul´s writing. For the mystery already operates (to gar musterion êdê energeitai).What was this power or principle already at work? In his letter to the Galatians Paul expressed his astonishment that so soon there was defection from justification by faith alone to dependence on works. In place of a free gift there is engendered dependence on a system of works which depend on the mass administered by priests, auricular confession, the doctrine of purgatory and merit associated with celibacy, the latter described by Paul as a doctrine of devils (1 Tim 4:1,3)."

That's quite a stretch and replete with eisegesis in my opinion. But, it's just my opinion... If this is how they go about proving it, I doubt I'll ever accept it.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopiaThat's quite a stretch and replete with eisegesis in my opinion. But, it's just my opinion... If this is how they go about proving it, I doubt I'll ever accept it.
Go back and read the exegesis provided for these verses from the time of the reformation up to the 20th century. The Puritan understanding as stated in the WCF was dominant for hundreds of years. Hulse's statement is not comprehensive and I didn't provide it as a comprehensive one. You could pick up Thomas Manton's sermons on 2 Thess 2 in Volume 3 of his works if you'd like a more thorough exposition. The questions was can one have preterist views and still accept that the Roman pontificus maximus is "the" AntiChrist to come. I submit it is possible and it would be rooted in rejecting preterist interpretations 2 Thess 2 and embracing the reformation's view of the texts, the Puritan's views of the text, and the predominant views of those who followed them.

With the current Anti-Christ in Rome arrogantly doling out Indulgences for visiting Cologne while he's there, or partial indulgences for praying for success of the visit, the spirit of antichrist is alive and well there and was working already towards building this man centered religion in Paul's day. I won't write off the Reformation's views quite as quickly as many seem to do today.

Yours In Christ,
Ron
 
Originally posted by rgrove
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopiaThat's quite a stretch and replete with eisegesis in my opinion. But, it's just my opinion... If this is how they go about proving it, I doubt I'll ever accept it.
Go back and read the exegesis provided for these verses from the time of the reformation up to the 20th century. The Puritan understanding as stated in the WCF was dominant for hundreds of years. Hulse's statement is not comprehensive and I didn't provide it as a comprehensive one. You could pick up Thomas Manton's sermons on 2 Thess 2 in Volume 3 of his works if you'd like a more thorough exposition. The questions was can one have preterist views and still accept that the Roman pontificus maximus is "the" AntiChrist to come. I submit it is possible and it would be rooted in rejecting preterist interpretations 2 Thess 2 and embracing the reformation's view of the texts, the Puritan's views of the text, and the predominant views of those who followed them.

With the current Anti-Christ in Rome arrogantly doling out Indulgences for visiting Cologne while he's there, or partial indulgences for praying for success of the visit, the spirit of antichrist is alive and well there and was working already towards building this man centered religion in Paul's day. I won't write off the Reformation's views quite as quickly as many seem to do today.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

:ditto:

Thomas Manton wrote 18 Sermons on 2 Thessalonians 2. There is a lot to read! :book2:
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Can one believe the Papacy is the Biblical anti-Christ, and still have an orthodox/partial preterist interpretation and approach to Revelation, the sermon on the mount, etc.?

yeah, we live in the postmodern age where anything goes...
:bigsmile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top