Pope as Antichrist

Is the Pope The Antichrist or no?

  • The Pope is neither

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Pope is other, namely....

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39
Status
Not open for further replies.

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
I used Mounce as an example. He follows an exegetical method and doesn't let later historical events determine the meaning of the Greek.
This is where we are at an impasse and I don't think either of us will agree with the other. I will give you one example of what I mean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

BayouHuguenot

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

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

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

We laugh (rightly) at dispensationalists when they see black helicopters in Revelation 9. I don't see how this is fundamentally all that different. It is the reverse form of newspaper exegesis.

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

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

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

But to suggest that historicists are not looking at the Hebrew or Greek to draw out the meaning of the text is, I would argue, mistaken. An example is re 2 Thessalonians 2 where the interpretation hinges in part on the Greek word used for "Temple." If I can re-find the sources I read on this, I will let you know.
I am not saying people approach with a blank slate. There is a difference between making the best choice based on the options provided by the Greek text (we do it in Hebrew all the time) versus reading later church history into the passage.

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

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

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
For example, there is no way I can take Greg Price seriously when he reads the later Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne into the passage. It's just not there in the Greek.
I don't follow Greg Price but now you have me interested in reading what he wrote!

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

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I don't follow Greg Price but now you have me interested in reading what he wrote!
He is a schismatic. His universal church consists of three people.
BTW, I used to read your blog years ago but then you kept changing your blog address and I had trouble chasing you all over the internet!
Sorry about that. I usually try to leave forwarding links.
 

Reformed Covenanter

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

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
I have read futurists who interpret Daniel 2 and 7 in a similar manner to historicists (the NIV Study Bible is one example I can think of). They are not reading history into their interpretation because from their perspective, it hasn't happened yet.
Thanks for drawing the above to my attention. I have two NIV Study Bibles (a small hardback one for travel and a really nice leather one, which I got at a knock-down price); I will be sure to check out the comments in the notes.
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for drawing the above to my attention. I have two NIV Study Bibles (a small hardback one for travel and a really nice leather one, which I got at a knock-down price); I will be sure to check out the comments in the notes.
Actually, it was a Kay Arthur study book on Daniel and the NIV notes that got me started on looking deeper into eschatology! I seem to recall them talking about the 4 empires in Daniel 2 & 7 in a similar manner to historicists (though this was many years ago).
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
I am not sure if this point has been made in this thread already, but, if so, it is one that bears reiterating. It is important to realise that the papal antichrist theory is not contingent upon a historicist reading of the book of Revelation. For example, John Calvin believed the pope was the man of sin but never wrote a commentary on Revelation.
True. David Silversides has a sermon on the "man of sin." I don't think he is a historicist:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112506153454
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top