Perilous times in the last days

[Rescued]

My only quibble with Pope = Man of Sin language is that it makes the Vatican the Temple of God and "among God's people" the Roman Catholic congregation, since no one else is in communion with him.

When you look at the origins of how it all happened roughly 1700 years ago, it did begin among God's people. That part of the prophecy seems to deal mainly with the origin of it. Paul is saying that this office has to arise within the church at that time before Christ will come again. But yes if you look at today's scenario, the Catholic church is not God's people. But the passage can't be a reference to a future rebuilt Jewish Temple because it could by no means be considered the Temple of God.

 

[Rescued]

Jeremy, so I understand your vantage point, what school of eschatology are you affiliated with, the historicist?

I think so. Historicist, partial preterist and in fact futurist in that Christ will literally come in the clouds as He ascended into them just as the angel said.

 

[RamistThomist]

When you look at the origins of how it all happened roughly 1700 years ago, it did begin among God's people. That part of the prophecy seems to deal mainly with the origin of it. Paul is saying that this office has to arise within the church at that time before Christ will come again. But yes if you look at today's scenario, the Catholic church is not God's people.

I don't want to say 1700 years ago, since that would make the Man of Sin partly responsible for the Nicene Creed. If you wanted to choose a pope, Gregory I is the usual candidate. Most usually opt for some post-Charlemagne pope. Of course, I don't read prophecy by a European history book, so I have a different take.

 

[Rescued]

I don't want to say 1700 years ago, since that would make the Man of Sin partly responsible for the Nicene Creed. If you wanted to choose a pope, Gregory I is the usual candidate. Most usually opt for some post-Charlemagne pope. Of course, I don't read prophecy by a European history book, so I have a different take.

Your assumption then is that since the Apostle uses the singular "man" of sin that he's referring to one single man. But the long period of time antichrist is said to wear out the saints of the most high says otherwise, that it must be referring to a series of men holding a single office in an antichurch system. This is the historic Protestant belief.

 

[RamistThomist]

But the long period of time antichrist is said to wear out the saints of the most high says otherwise, that it must be referring to a series of men holding a single office in an antichurch system

You are sneaking in an ecclesiastical element in the second clause of your premise. I grant no such premise.

I actually didn't say the man of sin is one man. Most historicists usually start the time period around Gregory I. Your scheme has the man of sin helping formulate the Nicene Creed. Applied consistently, we have something close to Trail of Blood.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jeremy,

The one area of doctrine that is still in flux – not settled, still moving – is eschatology, the study of the last days, and in particular the end of the last days, that is, that period of time when the denouement of God’s plan is executed and brought to a finish, when He wraps up the history of this age, this present world.

Thankfully (in God's providence), William Milligan in the 1800s developed the “idealist” interpretation of Revelation – and the Scriptural spiritual structure of the church age – delivering us from the flaws of the historicist school of understanding. It took men in the 20th and 21st centuries to modify Milligan’s idealism – what is now called “eclectic” or “modified” idealism, per G.K. Beale, Wm. Hendriksen, D.E. Johnson, etc.

You may want to take us back a few centuries – where men were admittedly wise and discerning, our Reformation fathers – but in this one area of doctrine, eschatology, they are neither applicable to our day, nor in accord with Scripture.

Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a vital principle applicable here,

“[It] 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.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p 133)​

O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:

“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)​

Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:

“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are in those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)​

Understanding of Revelation is slowly dawning – although much light can even now be seen – as the dynamics of spiritual activity and conflict play out. Historicism is primitive and profoundly flawed, yet there are historic events that will be visible as we draw nearer the eschaton.

 

[Rescued]

You are sneaking in an ecclesiastical element in the second clause of your premise. I grant no such premise.

I actually didn't say the man of sin is one man. Most historicists usually start the time period around Gregory I. Your scheme has the man of sin helping formulate the Nicene Creed. Applied consistently, we have something close to Trail of Blood.

The prophecy about the man of sin is connected with an apostasy from the true faith. So it had beginnings in the true church. The way it's stated is that there would come a falling away first and the man of sin would be revealed. It was a gradual process that began in the true church and the apostasy which began even in the times of the apostles started growing rapidly in the 3rd century and eventually led to the establishment of the Papal system.

 

[RamistThomist]

The prophecy about the man of sin is connected with an apostasy from the true faith. So it had beginnings in the true church. The way it's stated is that there would come a falling away first and the man of sin would be revealed. It was a gradual process that began in the true church and the apostasy which began even in the times of the apostles started growing rapidly in the 3rd century and eventually led to the establishment of the Papal system.

It could just as easily by the same logic been EO.

 

[Rescued]

It could just as easily by the same logic been EO.

I'm not sure who EO is but if you want good logic, consult Calvin or any of the Puritan fathers because they believed exactly what I believe. Although logic has less to do with discerning the meaning of scripture than does faith. We can discern from logic that there is a Creator, but scripture says we understand that He exists by faith.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not sure who EO is but if you want good logic, consult Calvin or any of the Puritan fathers because they believed exactly what I believe. Although logic has less to do with discerning the meaning of scripture than does faith. We can discern from logic that there is a Creator, but scripture says we understand that He exists by faith.

EO = Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't think you got what I meant by "logic." I simply meant by the same standard of reasoning (determing prophecy by reading church history) one could just as well say the man of sin is in EO, rather than Rome.

 

[Rescued]

EO = Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't think you got what I meant by "logic." I simply meant by the same standard of reasoning (determing prophecy by reading church history) one could just as well say the man of sin is in EO, rather than Rome.

So why believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah then by looking at history?

The Lord said, behold I tell you beforehand so that when it comes to pass you may believe. Taking history out of our hands blunts the accuracy of prophecy. Certainly the scriptures weren't given to God's people for them to quibble over vain speculations until the end of days, right?

 

[RamistThomist]

So why believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah then by looking at history?

The Lord said, behold I tell you beforehand so that when it comes to pass you may believe. Taking history out of our hands blunts the accuracy of prophecy. Certainly the scriptures weren't given to God's people for them to quibble over vain speculations until the end of days, right?

Proving Jesus rose from the dead by evidences is one thing. Combing church history and trying to pin down with which pope (and why the popes and not the EO patriarchs?) started the apostasy is quite another. The first is objective. The latter is subjective, especially since historicists usually start with Gregory and not in the pro-Nicene 300s.

 

[Rescued]

Proving Jesus rose from the dead by evidences is one thing. Combing church history and trying to pin down with which pope (and why the popes and not the EO patriarchs?) started the apostasy is quite another. The first is objective. The latter is subjective, especially since historicists usually start with Gregory and not in the pro-Nicene 300s.

Please get to your point. Are you claiming the papacy is not the Antichrist. And if not then who is?

And so what if my own personal estimation of when it began is inaccurate, that wouldn't change the identity of antichrist.

 

[RamistThomist]

Please get to your point. Are you claiming the papacy is not the Antichrist. And if not then who is?

And so what if my own personal estimation of when it began is inaccurate, that wouldn't change the identity of antichrist.

That is correct. I, like JerusalemBlade above, do not believe the papacy is the Antichrist. I reject historicism. As to who it is, I don't know. The man of sin hasn't yet been revealed, otherwise I would know who it is. That is my reading of the text. First the rebellion, then the revelation of man of lawlessness, then the day of God's wrath. I believe it is more sustainable than the historicist reading. I've only offered mild criticisms of historicism in this thread. I offered a stronger one years ago (which I've been meaning to find).

 

[RamistThomist]

Some of my criticisms of historicism here

Pope as Antichrist

Inspired by @W.C. Dean thread that has a side discussion regarding the Pope as Antichrist. For a long time I believed that the idea of the Pope being Antichrist held by many Reformers/Puritans/Covenanters was due to their own experiences in their own time. However, due to Scriptural evidence I...

puritanboard.com

Pope as Antichrist

If historicists can be accused of rewriting their schema as history marches on, it seems like the same criticism could be applied to other views as none of them are entirely nailed down and agreed upon by all within their respective camps. If none of the above are correct, that would seem to...

puritanboard.com

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moved to Revelation & Eschatology.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A few thoughts:

1. While you are right that the world has to some degree always been characterized by these things, I cannot imagine that these things could ever characterize the true church of Jesus Christ. She sins, falters, and sometimes drift away, but what is described here is utter godlessness, not waywardness.
2. Evil always seeks how it may become more evil. It is unsatiable. I struggle with my eschatology here. While I believe that the church will continue to grow and triumph throughout the world, I believe the world will yet grow worse and worse (2 Tim. 3:13). That the world has always been characterized by these things doesn't mean they can't get worse in them.
3. The "last days" began with Pentecost; it is not some future time.

In verse 5, Paul instructs the faithful church to turn away from those who have a form of godliness (but are denying the power thereof). The ones having the form of godliness are described in vss. 1-4. So this does pertain to the visible church, I think; Paul is warning that the true church is to mark out and separate from the false, which would surely arise.

This seems to describe very well what happened with Rome.

 

[RamistThomist]

This seems to describe very well what happened with Rome.

It just as easily describes EO and liberal Protestantism. The historicist can only give a necessary condition in the argument. He or she cannot give a sufficient condition.

 

[Zach]

It just as easily describes EO and liberal Protestantism. The historicist can only give a necessary condition in the argument. He or she cannot give a sufficient condition.

I would also add that it also doesn't exactly fit what happened at the time of the Reformation either since Luther was unjustly disciplined out of the Catholic Church, a point that we do well to remember as it relates to subsequent separations from Rome within Protestantism. Similarly, Machen did not separate from the Presbyterian Church, he was also unjustly disciplined out of it. I only bring this up because I think it was also relevant to a recent thread on the biblical warrant for separation (specifically secondary separation) or lack thereof. While it's a subject for another thread, both the history and the biblical evidence is much more complex.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It just as easily describes EO and liberal Protestantism. The historicist can only give a necessary condition in the argument. He or she cannot give a sufficient condition.

Does the EO have an infallible leader described as "the vicar of Christ?"

 

[Rescued]

That is correct. I, like JerusalemBlade above, do not believe the papacy is the Antichrist. I reject historicism. As to who it is, I don't know. The man of sin hasn't yet been revealed, otherwise I would know who it is. That is my reading of the text. First the rebellion, then the revelation of man of lawlessness, then the day of God's wrath. I believe it is more sustainable than the historicist reading. I've only offered mild criticisms of historicism in this thread. I offered a stronger one years ago (which I've been meaning to find).

So what you're saying is that a good portion of Biblical prophecy is useless to the church up until a period of a few years just before the Lord returns. That seems to place the Word of God in the fictional section at the bookstore.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jeremy, the Amillennial school – to which I belong – does not reject history, just the doctrine of Historicism which sees in Scripture symbols referring to historical persons, nations, and events, minutely delineating them, and which school's interpretation of those symbols change as time passes, and as men put their hands to declaring their own views.

The symbols depicting nations and events in the book of Daniel are not Historicist per se, but Biblical, as the LORD makes clear the nations He refers to. Revelation is fertile ground upon which Historicists try their hands.

Nor do the Amils deny that the popes were each "a man of sin", but not "the" man of sin, for the popes were indeed types of the final and archetypal antichrist, who is both a person and a government enacting his will. It is possible that a pope could be the man of sin, but not a foregone conclusion.

When we get to coordinating the various references to "man of sin" (2 Thess 2:3), "lawless one / that wicked" (2 Thess 2:8), beast from the sea"(Rev 13:1), and "beast from the land / false prophet" (Rev 13:11; 16:13; 19:20), to depict one or two persons (for the beast and the false prophet are distinct and separate) it gets a little tricky. Kim Riddlebarger's, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth about the Antichrist, is perhaps the best single work on this.

For the man of sin is both "sitting in the temple of God" (2 Thess 2:4) claiming to himself be "God" and to be worshipped / obeyed by all, and also a political figure wielding power to direct nations in attacking harlot Babylon (Rev 17:12,13,14). So identifying him will take careful discernment when he is revealed. This temple of God may be the professing Christian world, though the true church will reject him and incur his deadly wrath.

The identity of harlot / whore Babylon of Rev 17:1-6,15, 18) is another matter, and likely to be distinguished between her global manifestation (all the earth's systems against God and against His people), and a headquarters nation, even as the typical Chaldean and Roman empires each had a headquarters. It would appear to be this headquarters which the beast and his coalition of "ten" (representing the full or complete number of) nations that, under the leadership of the beast – yet fulfilling the will of God – destroy (Rev 17:16,17).

 

[RamistThomist]

So what you're saying is that a good portion of Biblical prophecy is useless to the church up until a period of a few years just before the Lord returns. That seems to place the Word of God in the fictional section at the bookstore.

Those seem to be the words I used in this thread.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does the EO have an infallible leader described as "the vicar of Christ?"

Officially, no. But even "infallible leader" doesn't necessarily give you the man of sin. It's terrible, I grant you that, but not man of sin. My point in bringing up EO is that the EO meet all the conditions for laxity, apostasy (if we want to go that route), and ecclesiastical megalomaia as Rome does.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jeremy, I'm responding to this you said to Jacob:

So what you're saying is that a good portion of Biblical prophecy is useless to the church up until a period of a few years just before the Lord returns. That seems to place the Word of God in the fictional section at the bookstore.

I don't think that's a fair reading of Jacob's words. We know it is written there shall be persecution all through the NT church age, sometimes severe, sometimes less so, and we are all on notice not to think it a strange thing when it happens to us (1 Pet 4:12 and following). It is also written that at the end of time there shall be a global "final solution" to the "Christian problem" orchestrated by the newly-loosed devil (Rev 20:7,8,9), in the midst of which the Lord returns to call His people, living and dead, to Himself in the air (Rev 11:7,11,12), ending the age in a wrath that destroys the destroyers.

That is to say, at the very end there shall be an almost unimaginable intensification of persecution, and when the final beast starts winsomely speaking, he shall gather into one coalition all those who hate the Christians – the woke also shall love him – to rid the saints from the earth, and the falling away of many shall be unprecedented in those days.

To equate the suffering of true Christians at the hands of a series of antichrists by the papacy "as a good portion of Biblical prophecy" – as though these horrific events were fulfilling the final prophecies of antichrist, seems to me denying that there are specific very end-time prophecies located at the end of the world that may well not have anything to do with popes and the papal system. It's like having a view that is stuck in the past – still in active opposition to an antichrist of years ago – leaving one vulnerable to newer threats.

It is not at all "futurist" to recognize things Scripture places in the future, and it is not responsible exegesis to squeeze past things into legitimately future time-frames (as our worthy Reformers did from lack of perspective, simply because an antichrist fit some of the bill).

It is possible a pope may fit the final bill (as I allowed in an earlier post, with a link to the current pope's antics), but that is not at all sure. The Historicist view so limits our range of discernment, and distorts the simplicity and clarity of Scripture per its Amil understanding.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The point I think is that the office of Pope still is the one that fits the bill, even though that office and that antichrist were set back by the years of reformation and following. The reformation having largely now been obscured, the office of vicar of Christ is still operating and still very much active, and the RCC is growing faster than Protestant churches in the west in the recent past. I don’t think we should be so quick to overthrow the wisdom of our reformed forefathers, and the Providence of God in working through the magistrate to call together Westminster for the express purpose of setting forth important doctrines for our edification.

 

[RamistThomist]

The point I think is that the office of Pope still is the one that fits the bill, even though that office and that antichrist were set back by the years of reformation and following. The reformation having largely now been obscured, the office of vicar of Christ is still operating and still very much active, and the RCC is growing faster than Protestant churches in the west in the recent past. I don’t think we should be so quick to overthrow the wisdom of our reformed forefathers, and the Providence of God in working through the magistrate to call together Westminster for the express purpose of setting forth important doctrines for our edification.

All of that might be true, but they aren't exegetical arguments, which was my point.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

All of that might be true, but they aren't exegetical arguments, which was my point.

I can barely hang in with the technical stuff, but am just thinking of OT prophecies about, say, Cyrus, who was recognizable from those prophecies when he arose. Christ prophesied of the downfall of Jerusalem, which was recognizable as fulfillment of that prophecy. Seeing Paul’s description of the man of sin as prophecy that would be recognizable when its fulfillment came isn’t at all a stretch, and that the Lord would have his people recognize the fulfillment when it comes, and knowing that He works through the means of church councils, I think we can be confident in continuing to agree with our confession of faith and wait on the Lord for further light.

 

[RamistThomist]

I can barely hang in with the technical stuff, but am just thinking of OT prophecies about, say, Cyrus, who was recognizable from those prophecies when he arose. Christ prophesied of the downfall of Jerusalem, which was recognizable as fulfillment of that prophecy. Seeing Paul’s description of the man of sin as prophecy that would be recognizable when its fulfillment came isn’t at all a stretch, and that the Lord would have his people recognize the fulfillment when it comes, and knowing that He works through the means of church councils, I think we can be confident in continuing to agree with our confession of faith and wait on the Lord for further light.

I linked to previous Puritanboard posts on why the historicist reading fails. I respect our forebears but that's neither a rational nor scriptural argument. I do think the Pope could be the Beast from the Land. That actually makes sense.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I linked to previous Puritanboard posts on why the historicist reading fails. I respect our forebears but that's neither a rational nor scriptural argument. I do think the Pope could be the Beast from the Land. That actually makes sense.

I’ll read them.