Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

John81

Rapture and Anti-Christ

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Just out of curiosity, are you the Google+ Fisher of Men and Fisher of Men Productions? The information for both is the same. If so, on your accompanying YouTube channel (Fisher of Men Productions), there is a video called "Danielle of Truth and Spirit Mime". If that is your channel, may I ask your reason for posting that video?

No that isn't me. I just liked the name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2016 at 8:25 PM, John81 said:

Why the shift from the predominate view being Christians wouldn't know who the Anti-Christ was because we would be raptured prior to his revealing, to the current view which says the Anti-Christ will be revealed before the Rapture so Christians will know who he is?

The Lord has already told us why John:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Oh, okay. That's strange though since you have your Google+ profile listed as Fisher of Men, and those were the only ones basically listed on Google+. Thanks for the response.

i have seen his videos tho. I like them for the most part. Not sure what his doctrine is or anything, but seems like for the most part he's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

‘..he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:7  


Hello Invicta, who then is 'he who now letteth'?

.

"Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this "let," or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early Church knew, he says, what this hindrance was. The early Church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had, by word of mouth only, told the Thessalonians. It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority. Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject."

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish."

CHAP. XXXII.

There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration.

 

Lactantius Firminianous (4th Century)

Divine Institutions (Divinae Institutiones)
Book VII, Chapter 25, OF THE LAST TIMES, AND OF THE CITY OF ROME:

These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: ... The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things; and the God of heaven is to be entreated by us and implored -- if, indeed, His arrangements and decrees can be delayed -- lest, sooner than we think for, that detestable tyrant should come who will trader-take so great a deed, and dig out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) Doctor of the Church
Catechetical Lectures
LECTURE XV.
ON THE CLAUSE, AND SHALL COME IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD; OF WHOSE KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END, DANIEL vii. 9--14.

12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself. At first indeed he will put on a show of mildness (as though he were a learned and discreet person), and of soberness and benevolence: and by the lying [108] signs and wonders of his magical deceit a having beguiled the Jews, as though he were the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all kinds of crimes of inhumanity and lawlessness, so as to outdo all unrighteous and ungodly men who have gone before him displaying against all men, but especially against us Christians, a spirit murderous and most cruel, merciless and crafty. And after perpetrating such things for three years and six months only, he shall be destroyed by the glorious second advent from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ, who shall slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and shall deliver him over to the fire of hell.

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) 
Homilies on Second Thessalonians
HOMILY IV.   2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6--9.

"And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming: even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan."

ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. ... And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it--but what? "that he may be revealed in his own season," he says, "For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work." He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, "the mystery"; that is, it worketh not openly, as the other, nor without shame. For if there was found a man before that time, he means, who was not much behind Antichrist in wickedness, what wonder, if there shall now be one? But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is noting to call for it. So indeed he also says here. "Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way," that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exit himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.

"And then," he says, "shall be revealed the lawless one." And what after this? The consolation is at hand. "Whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming, even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan."

Jerome (c. 340-420) 
Commentary on Daniel, Chapter 7, Verse 8:

"... We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, 

Augustine of Hippo (345 - 430) 

For what does he [Paul] mean by "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?" [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. ... However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, "Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way," refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, "Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way." "And then shall the wicked be revealed:" no one doubts that this means Antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother David,

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

"Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence."

This is true as per 2 Thessalonians 2:5-7 -- "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this "let," or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise.

Yet the quote of John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) indicates that, at least by his time, there were TWO different positions concerning the meaning of "he who now letteth."

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) 
Homilies on Second Thessalonians
HOMILY IV.   2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6--9.

"And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming: even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan."

ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire . . . . (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

This does NOT appear to indicate a "remarkable unanimity" by that time.

On the other hand, of those early "fathers" whom you quoted, Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century) certainly does indicate that the "withholder" is "the Roman state."  Yet even he does not present this position on the authority of a verbal tradition from the apostle Paul through the Thessalonian believers, but presents it on the authority of a "logical" argument.

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle

However, there is a problem with this "logical" argument, wherein Tertullian seeks to compare the teaching of 2 Thessalonians 2 with that of Daniel 7.  Tertullian's position indicated that the "what withholdeth" of 2 Thessalonians 2:6 and the "he who now letteth" of 2 Thessalonians 2:7 was the Roman Empire, and indicated in union with the teaching of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 that the Roman Empire must be "taken out of the way" in order that the Antichrist might be introduced.  However, this position does NOT find union with the teaching of Daniel 7; for Daniel 7 teaches us that the Antichrist will arise OUT OF the Roman Empire, not AFTER it is "taken out of the way."

In fact, the quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) that you presented, wherein there is not a single reference to the "withholder," actually DOES indicate that the antichrist will arise OUT OF the ROMAN EMPIRE, in accord with Daniel 7.

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) Doctor of the Church
Catechetical Lectures
LECTURE XV.
ON THE CLAUSE, AND SHALL COME IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD; OF WHOSE KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END, DANIEL vii. 9--14.

12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself. At first indeed he will put on a show of mildness (as though he were a learned and discreet person), and of soberness and benevolence: and by the lying [108] signs and wonders of his magical deceit a having beguiled the Jews, as though he were the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all kinds of crimes of inhumanity and lawlessness, so as to outdo all unrighteous and ungodly men who have gone before him displaying against all men, but especially against us Christians, a spirit murderous and most cruel, merciless and crafty. And after perpetrating such things for three years and six months only, he shall be destroyed by the glorious second advent from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ, who shall slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and shall deliver him over to the fire of hell.

It is also interesting that within this quotation Cyril of Jerusalem indicates that the antichrist will "at first . . . put on a show of mildness (as though he were a learned and discreet person), and of soberness and benevolence: and by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit a having beguiled the Jews, as though he were the expected Christ."  Furthermore, he indicates that after that time period of "soberness and benevolence," the antichrist will "afterwards be characterized by all kinds of crimes of inhumanity and lawlessness, so as to outdo all unrighteous and ungodly men who have gone before him displaying against all men, but especially against us Christians, a spirit murderous and most cruel, merciless and crafty," and that he will do this for exactly "three years and six months only," after which "he shall be destroyed by the glorious second advent from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ."  Yet I believe that you yourself DO NOT agree with this exact 3.5 year time period for the antichrist's aggressive persecution against believers.  Do you then believe that these church "fathers" could not possibly be wrong on some points, but that they could certainly be wrong on others?

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority.  Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject."

As for myself, I believe that these church "fathers," being an 100+ years removed from the apostles, certainly could get various doctrinal matters wrong.  Therefore, I shall continue to ground my doctrinal positions in the authority of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures ALONE.

in the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, we are taught that the "withholder" is a singular "what" that is also a singular "he."  Furthermore, we are taught that this One who now withholds is holding back the mysterious forces of "iniquity."  Yet the government of the Roman Empire is not a singular "he," and it certainly did not hold back the forces of "iniquity" (for it itself was immersed in iniquity).  On the other hand, the other position that was apparently held for the "withholder" by the time of John Chrysostom was "the grace of the Spirit."  So then, can God the Holy Spirit be legitimately referenced as a singular "He"?  Yes.  Does God the Holy Spirit have both the power and the interest to hold back the forces of iniquity?  Yes.  Can the permanent indwelling of God the Holy Spirit within the New Testament believers of the New Testament church be referenced as a "what"?  Yes.

I guess that I shall willingly be classified as "positively impertinent on such a subject."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother David,

in the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, we are taught that the "withholder" is a singular "what" that is also a singular "he."  Furthermore, we are taught that this One who now withholds is holding back the mysterious forces of "iniquity."  Yet the government of the Roman Empire is not a singular "he," and it certainly did not hold back the forces of "iniquity" (for it itself was immersed in iniquity).  On the other hand, the other position that was apparently held for the "withholder" by the time of John Chrysostom was "the grace of the Spirit."  So then, can God the Holy Spirit be legitimately referenced as a singular "He"?  Yes.  Does God the Holy Spirit have both the power and the interest to hold back the forces of iniquity?  Yes.  Can the permanent indwelling of God the Holy Spirit within the New Testament believers of the New Testament church be referenced as a "what"?  Yes.

I guess that I shall willingly be classified as "positively impertinent on such a subject."

Brother Scott,

Thanks for your reply.  You will recall that there was "He"" and a What" The "What"/ would be the empire and the "He" the emperor.  

Here in England we have a king (or at present a queen,)  We can speak of the King of England, it is usually the current king but we don't say one of the kings of England.  Edward the Confessor was the King of England, William and Mary were the King of England.  We have a saying thw when the king dies, "The King is dead, Long live the King."  The Pope is referred to as The Pope, which ever one it is.

And as I said earlier, all the kings in Dan 2. were just the first of a dynasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Invicta said:

Brother Scott,

Thanks for your reply.  You will recall that there was "He"" and a What" The "What"/ would be the empire and the "He" the emperor.  

Here in England we have a king (or at present a queen,)  We can speak of the King of England, it is usually the current king but we don't say one of the kings of England.  Edward the Confessor was the King of England, William and Mary were the King of England.  We have a saying thw when the king dies, "The King is dead, Long live the King."  The Pope is referred to as The Pope, which ever one it is.

And as I said earlier, all the kings in Dan 2. were just the first of a dynasty.

Brother David,

I thank you also for your reply, and your position concerning the "what" and the "he" references to the withholder may be a valid way to deal with those points.  However, those are not the only points of contention with which your position would need to deal.  The others would be as follows:

1.  The point of purpose and power -- In what way can it be legitimately claimed that the Roman Empire held back the mysterious forces of iniquity?

2.  The point of timing and sequence -- How could the Roman Empire, the fourth great kingdom as represented by the fourth great beast, be "taken out of the way" BEFORE the revelation of the antichrist, if the antichrist was to arise out of that Roman Empire as a part of that Roman Empire?  Furthermore, how could the Roman Empire, the fourth great kingdom as represented by the fourth great beast, be "taken out of the way" BEFORE the revelation of the antichrist, if both that Roman Empire and the antichrist are to continue until the Second Coming of Christ, wherein He will destroy them both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother David,

I thank you also for your reply, and your position concerning the "what" and the "he" references to the withholder may be a valid way to deal with those points.  However, those are not the only points of contention with which your position would need to deal.  The others would be as follows:

1.  The point of purpose and power -- In what way can it be legitimately claimed that the Roman Empire held back the mysterious forces of iniquity?

When the Roman  beast rose out of the sea of nations, it was not an empire, but a kingdom. it later included republics, dictatorships, emperors, and so called Christian emperors.

 6  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

He That letteth,  Letteth in this case does not allow, but just the opposite, prevent or hinder.  Just in case anyone should  challenge that, I quote from my  British passport.

"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State, Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty, all those to whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."  

Impressive isn't it?  But what it basically means is "Don't withhold passage." It is the he that lets untill he be taken out of  the way.  Some who follow the historic interpretation say that this refers to the overthrow of the Western Emperors, but is doesn't say 'overthrow' but "taken out of the way".  The emperor was "taken out of the way". when Constantine removed the seat if the Empire to Byzantium.  The Waldensians claimed their separation from Rome was when Sylvester was Bishop of Rome.  Sylvester was Bishop at the time of the removal of the Emperor,  I don't know anything more about this Sylvester, but he must have been a bad lot, because hundreds of years later in their Noble Lesson c.1160. mention  Sylvester.. a number of times  

The emperor held back the Papal Antichrist as no two rulers could rule from the same city  The Bishop of Rome  continued in the city gradually building up his power from the time of Constantine.  The papacy is the beast that was in Revelation. Rev 17:8  The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. After Constantine the Roman rulers were, but were not but actually 'yet is'  The bishop of Rome was in the background gradually gaining power.  But then we read in Rev 17:11  And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. The papacy is the last of the Roman rulers and.  There were seven previous ruling systems in Rome and the papacy is the eighth and he will last till Christ comes again then will go into perdition  Boniface III was the last Bishop of Rome and the first pope. The claims already made to being universal bishop were confirmed by the imperial decree of Phocas in AD 607.  Some take the opedom to egin in that year, but I take it in AD 610 when Phocas died and the pope's long held claims came into force. 

 

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  The point of timing and sequence -- How could the Roman Empire, the fourth great kingdom as represented by the fourth great beast, be "taken out of the way" BEFORE the revelation of the antichrist, if the antichrist was to arise out of that Roman Empire as a part of that Roman Empire?  Furthermore, how could the Roman Empire, the fourth great kingdom as represented by the fourth great beast, be "taken out of the way" BEFORE the revelation of the antichrist, if both that Roman Empire and the antichrist are to continue until the Second Coming of Christ, wherein He will destroy them both?

The Roman Empire will not, but the Roman Beast will.  The beast  had already seven systems before the popes fro kings to Chriistian emperors. Remember that at the time of the Revelation was given five had fallen, one is (The Emperors) but see what the Word says. Rev 17:10  And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.  The seventh, the Christian emperor, continued for a very short space of time before he removed to the East. The narative continues  Rev.17.11  And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.  From that we see that the Antichrist or Papacy was the eighth but of the seven.  The seven were all dynasties so there is no reason why the eighth should not be also.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Invicta said:

"Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this "let," or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early Church knew, he says, what this hindrance was. The early Church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had, by word of mouth only, told the Thessalonians. It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority. Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject."

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish."

CHAP. XXXII.

There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration.

 

Lactantius Firminianous (4th Century)

Divine Institutions (Divinae Institutiones)
Book VII, Chapter 25, OF THE LAST TIMES, AND OF THE CITY OF ROME:

These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: ... The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things; and the God of heaven is to be entreated by us and implored -- if, indeed, His arrangements and decrees can be delayed -- lest, sooner than we think for, that detestable tyrant should come who will trader-take so great a deed, and dig out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) Doctor of the Church
Catechetical Lectures
LECTURE XV.
ON THE CLAUSE, AND SHALL COME IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD; OF WHOSE KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END, DANIEL vii. 9--14.

12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself. At first indeed he will put on a show of mildness (as though he were a learned and discreet person), and of soberness and benevolence: and by the lying [108] signs and wonders of his magical deceit a having beguiled the Jews, as though he were the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all kinds of crimes of inhumanity and lawlessness, so as to outdo all unrighteous and ungodly men who have gone before him displaying against all men, but especially against us Christians, a spirit murderous and most cruel, merciless and crafty. And after perpetrating such things for three years and six months only, he shall be destroyed by the glorious second advent from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ, who shall slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and shall deliver him over to the fire of hell.

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) 
Homilies on Second Thessalonians
HOMILY IV.   2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6--9.

"And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming: even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan."

ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. ... And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it--but what? "that he may be revealed in his own season," he says, "For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work." He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, "the mystery"; that is, it worketh not openly, as the other, nor without shame. For if there was found a man before that time, he means, who was not much behind Antichrist in wickedness, what wonder, if there shall now be one? But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is noting to call for it. So indeed he also says here. "Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way," that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exit himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.

"And then," he says, "shall be revealed the lawless one." And what after this? The consolation is at hand. "Whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of His coming, even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan."

Jerome (c. 340-420) 
Commentary on Daniel, Chapter 7, Verse 8:

"... We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, 

Augustine of Hippo (345 - 430) 

For what does he [Paul] mean by "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?" [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. ... However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, "Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way," refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, "Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way." "And then shall the wicked be revealed:" no one doubts that this means Antichrist.

Thanks for your reply Invicta, I haven't heard that view before as far as I remember, it is interesting to know what some of the so called 'Fathers' believed, but that document's which favour Rome would survive Romes destructive censures makes sense,  I also believe that Scriprure Alone as revealed by the Holy Spirit as teacher are sufficient, I think that which Paul had told them before was basically the same as what he was now affirming by epistle.  The Club of Rome has divided the Globe into ten regions for financial purposes.

So are you saying that Rome was the restrainer, and the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and is yet to be destroyed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard the view that there must have been "someone" who could fulfill the antichrist role during the opening chapters of the book of Acts.  One potential candidate would be Simon the Sorcerer as found in Acts 8 (note this Is the transition between the "stoning of Stephen" and the salvation of Paul.

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Acts 8:9-20 
So Simon never actually received the Holy Spirit, even though at one point he "believed" and was baptized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, brother "beameup"... but it no longer matters, because it didn't happen then.  They DID stone Stephen, Israel was then blinded in part (until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in), and Paul was called out thereby giving the gospel to the Gentiles as well (in part, to provoke Israel to jealousy).  How thankful I am to have been born during this time period (the age of grace). How thankful I am for Jesus' perfect work on the cross (His willing death, burial, AND resurrection). How thankful I am for having heard the gospel and accepted Christ. How thankful I am that Jesus has delivered us from the wrath to come. And how thankful I am for the blessed hope. Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".  And even more thankful that God is in control and more powerful in His perfect righteousness than anything the devil can whip up, and even more powerful than the devil himself. 

I personally think the devil has had a candidate prepped/waiting in every generation since Christ came. The devil doesn't know when Jesus will rapture us and so I would think (my own opinion here) that he has had to have had someone ready for the position in each generation since Christ came. I also think (my own opinion again) that the devil is working overtime right now, because as prophecy starts lining up, he has to know his time is about up... so he's getting in all the gut-punches he can now. It will be far worse for those in the tribulation (Rev. 12:12) when he fully realizes that God's word is true, no matter how hard the devil tried to thwart prophecy from coming to pass, God is far superior and much more powerful than that nasty devil. The arrogance is amazing... God created him and yet he somehow thinks he can outsmart God! Ridiculous! The devil has done a LOT of damage to Israel, a LOT of damage to Christians, and a LOT of damage to mankind as a whole. He's jealous of our position with God, he's jealous of God's power and authority, he wants it all for himself... but he does not deserve it! He is not righteous, he is evil (obvious but profound). God only allows him to go so far with his plans, and God has even foretold the devil's demise... yet somehow the arrogance of the devil makes him think he could ever overcome God??? The devil has been blinded by his own greedy desires (we can see this on a smaller scale in mankind... thinking they know more than the God who created them... the stupidity of it, yet they think they are "wise" in their own conceits). So no matter WHO the antichrist is or will be... it doesn't matter. God has already told the end from the beginning!!! He has even let us in on many of the future events to come. We read the end of the book God gave us. God wins! AMEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Thanks for your reply Invicta, I haven't heard that view before as far as I remember, it is interesting to know what some of the so called 'Fathers' believed, but that document's which favour Rome would survive Romes destructive censures makes sense,  I also believe that Scriprure Alone as revealed by the Holy Spirit as teacher are sufficient, I think that which Paul had told them before was basically the same as what he was now affirming by epistle.  The Club of Rome has divided the Globe into ten regions for financial purposes.

So are you saying that Rome was the restrainer, and the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and is yet to be destroyed?

Yes  that is what many of our forefathers belied going back to the Waldesians before the reformation.  The early writers believed that the emperor was the then restrainer, because there could not be two rulers in Rome at the same time.  They were more in a position to know than were are because Paul said the Thessalonians knew because he told them and it would can assume that the Waldensians told their sister churches what the let and hindrance was.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Invicta said:

Yes  that is what many of our forefathers belied going back to the Waldesians before the reformation.  The early writers believed that the emperor was the then restrainer, because there could not be two rulers in Rome at the same time.  They were more in a position to know than were are because Paul said the Thessalonians knew because he told them and it would can assume that the Waldensians told their sister churches what the let and hindrance was. 

2Th 2:8 'And then shall that Wicked be revealed,* whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:'

So if Rome was the restrainer then this red Astrix would represent about 1900 years? Isn't that what Luther believed? I heard Luther Believed that Himself and company were to be consuming the Antichrist & Co with the preaching of the truth. Which if he was right is most relevant because it would mean that determinism was wrong and that we aught to be getting about finishing the task. but on top of that we might need to identify 'where is the Antichrist NOW' So we can demolish it's lies which exalt themselves above God.?

 

Edited by Old-Pilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

2Th 2:8 'And then shall that Wicked be revealed,* whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:'

So if Rome was the restrainer then this red Astrix would represent about 1900 years? Isn't that what Luther believed? I heard Luther Believed that Himself and company were to be consuming the Antichrist & Co with the preaching of the truth. Which if he was right is most relevant because it would mean that determinism was wrong and that we aught to be getting about finishing the task. but on top of that we might need to identify 'where is the Antichrist NOW' So we can demolish it's lies which exalt themselves above God.?

 

I shouldn't believe hearsay about Luther.  When he burnt the Papal Bull he wrote a tract entitled, Against The Execrable Bull of Antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ronda said:

 I personally think the devil has had a candidate prepped/waiting in every generation since Christ came. The devil doesn't know when Jesus will rapture us and so I would think (my own opinion here) that he has had to have had someone ready for the position in each generation since Christ came.

Good point.  I believe that also.  Isn't it amazing that God could wait so many centuries to complete the Body of Christ?   Now we see Israel once again and the growth of Messianic congregations there in Israel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Invicta said:

I shouldn't believe hearsay about Luther.  When he burnt the Papal Bull he wrote a tract entitled, Against The Execrable Bull of Antichrist.

I doubt if Luther was always right, but he advanced the truth much, I heard that he believed that the preacher/christian was the spirit (breath) of His mouth, and so that by the Church Christ was making war against the beast.

 

Edited by Old-Pilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, beameup said:
24 minutes ago, beameup said:

Good point.  I believe that also.  Isn't it amazing that God could wait so many centuries to complete the Body of Christ?   Now we see Israel once again and the growth of Messianic congregations there in Israel. 

Good point.  I believe that also.  Isn't it amazing that God could wait so many centuries to complete the Body of Christ?   Now we see Israel once again and the growth of Messianic congregations there in Israel. 

 

6 hours ago, Ronda said:

I see your point, brother "beameup"... but it no longer matters, because it didn't happen then.  They DID stone Stephen, Israel was then blinded in part (until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in), and Paul was called out thereby giving the gospel to the Gentiles as well (in part, to provoke Israel to jealousy).  How thankful I am to have been born during this time period (the age of grace). How thankful I am for Jesus' perfect work on the cross (His willing death, burial, AND resurrection). How thankful I am for having heard the gospel and accepted Christ. How thankful I am that Jesus has delivered us from the wrath to come. And how thankful I am for the blessed hope. Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".  And even more thankful that God is in control and more powerful in His perfect righteousness than anything the devil can whip up, and even more powerful than the devil himself. 

I personally think the devil has had a candidate prepped/waiting in every generation since Christ came. The devil doesn't know when Jesus will rapture us and so I would think (my own opinion here) that he has had to have had someone ready for the position in each generation since Christ came. I also think (my own opinion again) that the devil is working overtime right now, because as prophecy starts lining up, he has to know his time is about up... so he's getting in all the gut-punches he can now. It will be far worse for those in the tribulation (Rev. 12:12) when he fully realizes that God's word is true, no matter how hard the devil tried to thwart prophecy from coming to pass, God is far superior and much more powerful than that nasty devil. The arrogance is amazing... God created him and yet he somehow thinks he can outsmart God! Ridiculous! The devil has done a LOT of damage to Israel, a LOT of damage to Christians, and a LOT of damage to mankind as a whole. He's jealous of our position with God, he's jealous of God's power and authority, he wants it all for himself... but he does not deserve it! He is not righteous, he is evil (obvious but profound). God only allows him to go so far with his plans, and God has even foretold the devil's demise... yet somehow the arrogance of the devil makes him think he could ever overcome God??? The devil has been blinded by his own greedy desires (we can see this on a smaller scale in mankind... thinking they know more than the God who created them... the stupidity of it, yet they think they are "wise" in their own conceits). So no matter WHO the antichrist is or will be... it doesn't matter. God has already told the end from the beginning!!! He has even let us in on many of the future events to come. We read the end of the book God gave us. God wins! AMEN!

'So no matter WHO the antichrist is or will be... it doesn't matter. God has already told the end from the beginning!!! He has even let us in on many of the future events to come. We read the end of the book God gave us. God wins! AMEN!'

But we are 'co workers' so we do need to mature and engage, don't we?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

I doubt if Luther was always right, but he advanced the truth much, I heard that he believed that the preacher/christian was the spirit (breath) of His mouth, and so that by the Church Christ was making war against the beast.

 

Again, I say, Don't believe hearsay about Luther, or anyone else for that matter.  When it comes to men in the past, read what they have written, not what people say about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

But we are 'co workers' so we do need to mature and engage, don't we?

I'm not sure what you define as "mature and engage" or where you get that in the Bible in reference to the antichrist... I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it tells us to guess the name of the antichrist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Invicta said:

Again, I say, Don't believe hearsay about Luther, or anyone else for that matter.  When it comes to men in the past, read what they have written, not what people say about them.

oh 'hearsay' I miss read, I thought you said heresy. I agree with you on that point if someone is going to teach on what certain people believed it is important to find source material, get it from the horses mouth as they say, That is why I said' I have heard that Luther believed', because I never checked it out. It was Chris Pinto who said it, and he does give some sort of reference, I have found him to be about as good as they come for reliability. Not that I always agree with him. I think his documentaries are worth the time to view them. My main concern is not so much whether Luther believed such a thing or not, but whether it is true or not, if it is true, then we would be indeed co workers with Christ. And it could be that the time scale of the prophecy in Daniel about the church being trodden down and persecuted for a long time might actually depend on how long we take to mature and overcome the world, i.e. the ball might be in our court. I know that is a bit foggy. This would mean that although The Lord knows on what date for example the stone not hewn by hand shall hit the feet of the image, as described in Daniel, that date might not actually be set yet, and might be dependent on how soon the Church matures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

oh 'hearsay' I miss read, I thought you said heresy. I agree with you on that point if someone is going to teach on what certain people believed it is important to find source material, get it from the horses mouth as they say, That is why I said' I have heard that Luther believed', because I never checked it out. It was Chris Pinto who said it, and he does give some sort of reference, I have found him to be about as good as they come for reliability. Not that I always agree with him. I think his documentaries are worth the time to view them. My main concern is not so much whether Luther believed such a thing or not, but whether it is true or not, if it is true, then we would be indeed co workers with Christ. And it could be that the time scale of the prophecy in Daniel about the church being trodden down and persecuted for a long time might actually depend on how long we take to mature and overcome the world, i.e. the ball might be in our court. I know that is a bit foggy. This would mean that although The Lord knows on what date for example the stone not hewn by hand shall hit the feet of the image, as described in Daniel, that date might not actually be set yet, and might be dependent on how soon the Church matures.

Luther changed his mind on a number of issues.  One source of hearsay of Luther, it is the book, Luther's Table Talk.  It is purported to be sayings that his friends collected while at his table.  They may be true but maybe not. Quite an extensive book.  I think I have a copy somewhere but I have never read much of it. I have not seen it lately so may not have it now.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ronda said:

I'm not sure what you define as "mature and engage" or where you get that in the Bible in reference to the antichrist... I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it tells us to guess the name of the antichrist. 

I don't think I said anything about Naming the Antichrist, but what I meant was that some people believe that one thing which was instrumental in the reformation was that when the Church Identified the RC church as the manifestation of the enemy of Christ on earth, by mature and engage I mean that Christ might not be coming back until we are ready, as I said ''My main concern is not so much whether Luther believed such a thing or not, but whether it is true or not, if it is true, then we would be indeed co workers with Christ. And it could be that the time scale of the prophecy in Daniel about the church being trodden down and persecuted for a long time might actually depend on how long we take to mature and overcome the world, i.e. the ball might be in our court. I know that is a bit foggy. This would mean that although The Lord knows on what date for example the stone not hewn by hand shall hit the feet of the image, as described in Daniel, that date might not actually be set yet, and might be dependent on how soon the Church matures. Aren't the saints going to be behind the Lamb at Armageddon? so at that point we shall be fully engaged in battle.

 

9 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 27 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...