antichrist

[JM]

REFORMED CALVINISTS ONLY PLEASE:

Historically the Reformed recognized that free will worship and superstitious religion that produces idolatry to be antichristian. The confession single out one office as the office of the antichrist. Most Reformers rejected the idea that Nero was antichrist, the "old wifes fable that was contrived respecting Nero" as Calvin refers to this teaching.

What was it that conviniced you Nero was antichrist? I can understand that Nero could be an antichrist but what is it that makes you think he is antichrist?

 

[bsd058]

Being antichrist and being an antichrist seem to be synonymous terms nowadays.

Nero is often seen as The Antichrist because the number of the name of the beast in Revelation added up to 666 and so did his name. Now, I understand that there is a textual variant which offers the number 616 as the name of the beast, but from what I understand about your presuppositions, you hold to the TR. So that would be a good reason to accept 666 as the number. Also, Nero died around 68 AD (some hold to an early date of Revelation) of a sword wound to his neck (viewed as his head). There were some rumors that Nero was healed, but I don't know if it was due to the Revelation or if it was just hearsay. Some today interpret this to possibly mean that Nero himself would be healed and come back to life or that someone a lot like him would replace him and it would seem that Nero had returned.

I think it's possible that John was talking about Nero cryptically in his letter. Just as other apocalyptic literature has characters of the day being represented as symbols or beasts, I think Revelation acts in a similar manner. I'm not a preterist, but I would be willing to accept that John was talking about Nero since he tells us that the number IS a number of a man, not will be the number of a man and Nero's name adds up in Greek. Plus he certainly did hate Christians and deified himself. The death lines up. But the healing of the beast may only be indicative of the rumors that existed during the day that he would come back to life.

 

[JM]

All interesting stuff, please have patience with me on this subject, I don't think Nero adds up to 666. I've learned or rather read, not sure if its true or not, but Preterists use a very uncommon spelling for Nero (Neron) to get it to equal out to 666. Again, this is all new to me, but according to Hebrew numerology when the "Nun" appears it equals 700 so the final total would actually be more then 666.

Thanks for the give and take. The subjected seemed clear to the Reformers, that antichrist was the one who claimed to stand in place of Christ and offered a false Gospel of free will, works religion...was antichrist. It all seems so confusing now.

jm

PS: From what I have read it seems Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 5) taught that 616 was a copyist error.

 

[bsd058]

All interesting stuff, please have patience with me on this subject, I don't think Nero adds up to 666. I've learned or rather read, not sure if its true or not, but Preterists use a very uncommon spelling for Nero (Neron) to get it to equal out to 666. Again, this is all new to me, but according to Hebrew numerology when the "Nun" appears it equals 700 so the final total would actually be more then 666.

Thanks for the give and take. The subjected seemed clear to the Reformers, that antichrist was the one who claimed to stand in place of Christ and offered a false Gospel of free will, works religion...was antichrist. It all seems so confusing now.

jm

PS: From what I have read it seems Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 5) taught that 616 was a copyist error.

I think 666 is the real number, too.

Don't worry about it, man. It's not a make or break thing to me and I think anyone who says they have it all figured out is either blessed in a special way or is full of themselves.

lol. Have a great weekend!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

To think, I used to use Nero Burning Rom software (before I started using the free CDBurnerXP program)....is there a connection between the Nero and the Burning? The mystery!

 

[Keachian]

All interesting stuff, please have patience with me on this subject, I don't think Nero adds up to 666. I've learned or rather read, not sure if its true or not, but Preterists use a very uncommon spelling for Nero (Neron) to get it to equal out to 666. Again, this is all new to me, but according to Hebrew numerology when the "Nun" appears it equals 700 so the final total would actually be more then 666.

Thanks for the give and take. The subjected seemed clear to the Reformers, that antichrist was the one who claimed to stand in place of Christ and offered a false Gospel of free will, works religion...was antichrist. It all seems so confusing now.

jm

PS: From what I have read it seems Irenaeus (Against Heresies, book 5) taught that 616 was a copyist error.

Where'd do you get nun=700? What I've found is that nun = 50

נרון קסר

50 + 200 + 6 + 50 + 100 + 60 + 200

Also I was under the impression that the nu ending of Nero's name in Greek was standard.

 

[JM]

From an online article.

After your post I googled it and it was one of the first links provided. I guess it depends on the placement of the character.

 

[JM]

Don't know if we can trust this site or not, but here's a quote, this was taken from a random google I did:

NumberMan

Caesar Neron​

Nero was the Roman Emperor who persecuted the Christians. Some say he was the person whom John was referring to in Revelation. I don't recall anything in the history books about him enforcing a mark of the beast.

​

The actual Greek rending of this name doesn’t even come close to 666. If we use Hebrew then it depends on how we spell out his name. This is the correct way to spell Caesar Neron as written in Greek.

​

Καισαρι Νερωνι (Greek Gematria)

Caesar Neron

342 + 1015 = 1357

Here is the Hebrew spelling of the name:​

קיסר נרו (Hebrew Gematria)

Caesar Nero

370 + 256 = 626 (If you drop the Yud from קיסר then you would have 616, but that's not how Caesar is spelled in Hebrew)

Some use an alternate spelling of his Name/Title such as קסר נורן which does total to 666. So is it Nero נרו or Neron נורן, Caesar קסר or קיסר? This will obviously adjust the values there.

​

There are Final Letters such as Nun, Mem, Tzadik, Peh, and Caph. Some choose to use the Sofit values of those letters and others don't. Early Hebrew didn't have final letters as this is more modern Hebrew dating back to about the 2nd century CE.

​

Revelation was written in Greek therfore it would seem strange to use a Hebrew calculation to come up with the value of 666/616 for his name.​

One missed detail with the Nero scenario is the timing of his rule with the authorship of Revelation by John.

​

Nero ruled Rome from 54-68 A.D. Revelation's estimated authorship is upwards of 20 or more years beyond his rule. Now if Revelation is thought to be prophetic it wouldn't make sense claiming Nero as the Antichrist since he had already died many years before. Therefore don’t push aside the idea we have another one coming whom will have a much greater influence then a Roman Emperor who lived 2,000 years ago.

​

Of course we’ve also noted above that this could mean “Number of Man” not just the “Number of a Man” such as Nero or whomever else should come to fullfill this role.[end quote]

I think Luther, Calvin and many others had it right. Nero seems like one of many persecutors of the church but never claimed to be of the faith, or a prophet, he didn't deceive with signs and wonders either.

At least I don't believe he did.

jm
​

 

[JM]

prog, I do not read Hebrew, does it make sense what I posted?

I found a link with sermons/lectures on 666 and hope to listen to them latter tonight. I've listened to most of Pastor Mencarow's sermons on Revelation and they are excellent.

666: The Classic Reformed View (Free MP3s)

 

[student ad x]

REFORMED CALVINISTS ONLY PLEASE:

Historically the Reformed recognized that free will worship and superstitious religion that produces idolatry to be antichristian. The confession single out one office as the office of the antichrist. Most Reformers rejected the idea that Nero was antichrist, the "old wife’s fable that was contrived respecting Nero" as Calvin refers to this teaching.

What was it that conviniced you Nero was antichrist? I can understand that Nero could be an antichrist but what is it that makes you think he is antichrist?

Hey brother, I recommend a look @ Before Jerusalem Fell, chap12 pg 193 - info on the part-preterist view/Nero (direct link to pdf book). Good information from Gentry imo. I may re-read this myself.

God bless

 

[Keachian]

prog, I do not read Hebrew, does it make sense what I posted?

I found a link with sermons/lectures on 666 and hope to listen to them latter tonight. I've listened to most of Pastor Mencarow's sermons on Revelation and they are excellent.

666: The Classic Reformed View (Free MP3s)

From my limited knowledge the spelling of Caesar in Hebrew is most correct with Qoph as I had it, I'm not sure whether the final nun numerology is ancient or more recent I'll have to have a look but those are my thoughts

 

[JM]

Hey brother, I recommend a look @ Before Jerusalem Fell, chap12 pg 193 - info on the part-preterist view/Nero (direct link to pdf book). Good information from Gentry imo. I may re-read this myself.

God bless

Eschatology is confusing. I read Gentry a long time ago but will have another look at the link, thanks.

 

[JM]

From my limited knowledge the spelling of Caesar in Hebrew is most correct with Qoph as I had it, I'm not sure whether the final nun numerology is ancient or more recent I'll have to have a look but those are my thoughts

Thanks for the help.

_______________

SAX, did you see the online work for The Parousia by Russell? Sproul's work (The Last Days According to Jesus) relies heavily on the work of Russell.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1878_russell_parousia_1st-ed.pdf

 

[JM]

Do you folks believe Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar created Preterism and Francisco Ribera created Futurism?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Do you folks believe Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar created Preterism and Francisco Ribera created Futurism?

Yes, i do believe that De Alcazar came up with the basic view that is today called Preterism. i also believe that his own theological views have nothing to do with whether or not his views are correct.

Those views must stand or fall on their own merits, and not a guilt by association fallacy.

Unless of course you want to also reject the Christology of Anslem and Athanasius.

 

[JM]

Yes, i do believe that De Alcazar came up with the basic view that is today called Preterism.

Ok.

i also believe that his own theological views have nothing to do with whether or not his views are correct.

Ok.

Those views must stand or fall on their own merits, and not a guilt by association fallacy. Unless of course you want to also reject the Christology of Anslem and Athanasius.

I agree. From my readings on the subject...Protestants during the 18th and 19th century were overwhelmingly Historicist. It was believed both futurism and preterism were invented by the Jesuits because of what was called 'Protestant' eschatology. This Protestant eschatology was held by the forerunners of the Reformation, the Reformers, the Confessions and various groups until about 1900.

Is preterism and futurism just a smoke screen? A couple of quotes I found recently.

H. Grattan Guinness explains the origin of Futurism;

The third or FUTURIST view, is that which teaches that the prophetic visions of Revelation, from chapters iv to xix, prefigure events still wholly future and not to take place, till just at the close of this dispensation. . . .

In its present form however it may be said to have originated at the end of the sixteenth century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, moved like Alcazar, to relieve the Papacy from the terrible stigma cast upon it by the Protestant interpretation, tried to do so, by referring those prophecies to the distant future, instead of like Alcazar to the distant past. For a considerable period this view was confined to Romanists, and was refuted by several masterly Protestant works. But of late years, since the commencement of this century, it has sprung up afresh, and sprung up strange to say among Protestants. It was revived by such writers as the two Maitlands, Burgh, Tyso, Dr. Dodd, the leaders of the “Brethren” generally, and by some Puseyite expositors also . . . ” from The Approaching End of the Age

E. B. Elliot explains the origin of Preterism;

“IT was stated at the conclusion of my Sketch of the History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, that there are at present too, and but two, grand general counter-Schemes to what may be called the historic Protestant view of the Apocalypse: that view which regards the prophecy as a prefiguration of the great events that were to happen in the Church, and world connected with it, from St. Johns time to the consummation; including specially the establishment of the Popedom, and reign of Papal Rome, as in some way or other the fulfillment of the types of the Apocalyptic Beast and Babylon. The first of these two counter-Schemes is the Præterists, which would have the prophecy stop altogether short of the Popedom, explaining it of the catastrophes, one or both, of the Jewish Nation and Pagan Rome; and of which there are two sufficiently distinct varieties: the second the Futurists; which in its original form would have it all shoot over the head of the Popedom into times yet future; and refer simply to the events that are immediately to precede, or to accompany, Christs second Advent; or, in its various modified forms, have them for its chief subject. I shall in this second Part of my Appendix proceed successively to examine these two, or rather four, anti-Protestant counter-Schemes; and show, if I mistake not, the palpable untenableness alike of one and all. Which done,1 It may perhaps be well, from respect to his venerated name, to add an examination of the late Dr. Arnolds general prophetic counter-theory. This, together with a notice of certain recent counter-views on the Millennium, will complete our review of counter-prophetic Schemes.

Now with regard to the Præterist Scheme, on the review of which we are first to enter, it may be remembered that I stated it to have had its origin with the Jesuit Alcasar:2 and that it was subsequently, and after Grotius and Hammonds prior adoption of it, adopted and improved by Bossuet, the great Papal champion, under one form and modification;3 then afterwards, under another modification, by Hernnschneider, Eichhorn, and others of the German critical and generally infidel school of the last half-century;4 followed in our own æra by Heinrichs, and by Moses Stuart of the United States of America.5 The two modifications appear to have arisen mainly out of the differences of date assigned to the Apocalypse; whether about the end of Neros reign or Domitians6 I shall, I think, pretty well exhaust whatever can be thought to call for examination in the system, by considering separately, first the Neronic, or favorite German form and modification of the Præterist Scheme, as propounded by Eichhorn, Hug, Heinrichs, and Moses Stuart; secondly Bossuets Domitianic form, the one most generally approved, I believe, by Roman Catholics.” Horae Apocalypticae or Hours with the Apocalypse

Now I hope you don't think I'm arguing. I'm asking questions about it. I do consider myself a Historicist but not sold on any eschatological position. I'm willing to learn and be corrected.

To His glory,

jm

 

[gord44]

Interesting conversation. Keep it up. Enjoying the read!

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Ok.



Ok.

I agree. From my readings on the subject...Protestants during the 18th and 19th century were overwhelmingly Historicist. It was believed both futurism and preterism were invented by the Jesuits because of what was called 'Protestant' eschatology. This Protestant eschatology was held by the forerunners of the Reformation, the Reformers, the Confessions and various groups until about 1900.

Is preterism and futurism just a smoke screen? A couple of quotes I found recently.

H. Grattan Guinness explains the origin of Futurism;

The third or FUTURIST view, is that which teaches that the prophetic visions of Revelation, from chapters iv to xix, prefigure events still wholly future and not to take place, till just at the close of this dispensation. . . .

In its present form however it may be said to have originated at the end of the sixteenth century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, moved like Alcazar, to relieve the Papacy from the terrible stigma cast upon it by the Protestant interpretation, tried to do so, by referring those prophecies to the distant future, instead of like Alcazar to the distant past. For a considerable period this view was confined to Romanists, and was refuted by several masterly Protestant works. But of late years, since the commencement of this century, it has sprung up afresh, and sprung up strange to say among Protestants. It was revived by such writers as the two Maitlands, Burgh, Tyso, Dr. Dodd, the leaders of the “Brethren” generally, and by some Puseyite expositors also . . . ” from The Approaching End of the Age

E. B. Elliot explains the origin of Preterism;

“IT was stated at the conclusion of my Sketch of the History of Apocalyptic Interpretation, that there are at present too, and but two, grand general counter-Schemes to what may be called the historic Protestant view of the Apocalypse: that view which regards the prophecy as a prefiguration of the great events that were to happen in the Church, and world connected with it, from St. Johns time to the consummation; including specially the establishment of the Popedom, and reign of Papal Rome, as in some way or other the fulfillment of the types of the Apocalyptic Beast and Babylon. The first of these two counter-Schemes is the Præterists, which would have the prophecy stop altogether short of the Popedom, explaining it of the catastrophes, one or both, of the Jewish Nation and Pagan Rome; and of which there are two sufficiently distinct varieties: the second the Futurists; which in its original form would have it all shoot over the head of the Popedom into times yet future; and refer simply to the events that are immediately to precede, or to accompany, Christs second Advent; or, in its various modified forms, have them for its chief subject. I shall in this second Part of my Appendix proceed successively to examine these two, or rather four, anti-Protestant counter-Schemes; and show, if I mistake not, the palpable untenableness alike of one and all. Which done,1 It may perhaps be well, from respect to his venerated name, to add an examination of the late Dr. Arnolds general prophetic counter-theory. This, together with a notice of certain recent counter-views on the Millennium, will complete our review of counter-prophetic Schemes.

Now with regard to the Præterist Scheme, on the review of which we are first to enter, it may be remembered that I stated it to have had its origin with the Jesuit Alcasar:2 and that it was subsequently, and after Grotius and Hammonds prior adoption of it, adopted and improved by Bossuet, the great Papal champion, under one form and modification;3 then afterwards, under another modification, by Hernnschneider, Eichhorn, and others of the German critical and generally infidel school of the last half-century;4 followed in our own æra by Heinrichs, and by Moses Stuart of the United States of America.5 The two modifications appear to have arisen mainly out of the differences of date assigned to the Apocalypse; whether about the end of Neros reign or Domitians6 I shall, I think, pretty well exhaust whatever can be thought to call for examination in the system, by considering separately, first the Neronic, or favorite German form and modification of the Præterist Scheme, as propounded by Eichhorn, Hug, Heinrichs, and Moses Stuart; secondly Bossuets Domitianic form, the one most generally approved, I believe, by Roman Catholics.” Horae Apocalypticae or Hours with the Apocalypse

Now I hope you don't think I'm arguing. I'm asking questions about it. I do consider myself a Historicist but not sold on any eschatological position. I'm willing to learn and be corrected.

To His glory,

jm

EEEEKKK!!!!!!! Small print!

Shouldn't do this kind of thing to old eyes. Fortunately, Firefox has a utility for enlarging the print on a web page.

Modern Preterism appears to be the preferred eschatology of Christian Reconstructionists although not uniquely so. Most Preterists are Post Millennial. i'm an exception in that i'm an Amillennial Preterist. We exist but are far more rare than the Post Mill type.

Actually, just about any of the 'orthodox' eschatological views can accomodate Preterism...with the notable exception of Dispensational Premillennialism.

i did find the article above rather informative. In particular i'm surprised that Grotius is mentioned in the article as being one of the prototype preterists. In light of his other ideas--What is it with lawyers presuming to be theologians?-- this appears to be somewhat of an inconsistency.

That said, the preterism of today is probably not the preterism of Grotius or Alcazar, any more that modern Dispensationalism resembles that of Edward Irving or John N.A. Darby.

Indeed the majour in house debate among Preterists today is what if any events are future, and what has been fullfilled. There are several different schools of thought among Preterists on these issues.

Some preterists, who prefer to refer to themselves as "Consistent Preterists" even deny the creeds concerning the resurrection of the dead at some future time.

 

[JM]

Here is a definition most Reformers would have used for the Antichirst.

The Term Antichrist: "We shall not go far afield in this discussion: nor is it in the least necessary to do so. The materials for a right decision on the question before us lie close at hand. The Apostle John, speaking of the great apostacy to arise in Christendom, calls it the “Antichrist.” And the Pope has taken to himself, as the name that best describes his office, the title “Vicar of Christ.” All we shall ask as the basis of our argument are these two accepted facts, namely, that John styles the “apostacy,” “the Antichrist,” and that the head of the Roman system styles himself “Christ’s Vicar.”

The Papacy holds in its name the key of its meaning. We shall make use of that key in unlocking its mystery and true character. The Papacy cannot complain though weadopt this line of interpretation. We do nothing more than use the key it has put into our hands. The Apostle John, we have said, speaking of the apostacy, the coming of which he predicts, styles it the “Antichrist.” And we have also said that the Papacy, speaking through its representative and head, calls itself the “Vicar of Christ.” The first, “Antichrist,” is a Greek word, the second, “Vicar,” is an English word; but the two are in reality one, for both words have the same meaning. Antichrist translated into English is vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ; and Vicar of Christ, rendered into Greek is Antichrist –Antichristos.

If we can establish this –and the ordinary use of the word by those to whom the Greek was a vernacular, isdecisive on the point –we shall have no difficulty in showing that this is the meaning of the word “Antichrist,” –even a Vice-Christ. And if so, then every time the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, he pleads at the bar of the world that he is the “Antichrist.” Moreover, this will clear our way and simplify our discussion. For, let it be noted, if Antichrist signifies a Vice-Christ –that is, one who comes in the room of Christ –deception, dissimulation, counterfeit, must be an essential element in his character. In whatever persons or systems that fundamental characteristic is lacking, we fail to find the “Antichrist,” whatever may be their general opposition to Christ and to Christianity, or whatever other features of the Antichrist they may bear. They may have every othercharacteristic by which prophecy had described this noted adversary of Christ and his gospel, yet, lacking thisfundamental one, their claim to this pre-eminently evil distinction cannot be admitted. This enables us to dismisssummarily and at once a host of Antichrists which have been conjured up by persons who have drawn upon their imagination, rather than followed any sound principle of prophetic interpretation. The cause of the papacy is served by the false glosses and mistaken interpretations of Scripture which interpose a pseudo-antichrist betwixt it and Prophecy, which unfolds against it so black a record, and suspends above it so terrible a doom.

We shall suppose that an atheist or an infidel has been put to the bar to answer to a charge of being the Antichrist. He has manifested a Satanic malignity against the Gospel, and has laboured to the utmost of his power to destroy it. He has blasphemed God, execrated Christ, and derided, vilified, and persecuted all who profess His name, and on these grounds he has been assumed to be the Antichrist. The case is no imaginary one. Atheists and scoffers in former ages, Voltaire and Paine in later times, Communists and Pantheists in our own day, have all been arraigned as the Antichrist. Well, let us suppose that one or other of these notoriously wicked personages or systems has been put to the bar, on the charge of being the“adversary” predicted by John. “Who are you?” says the judge. “Are you aVice-Christ? So you make a profession ofChristianity, and under that pretext seek to undermine and destroy it? “No,” replies theaccused. “I am no counterfeit. Christ and His Gospel I hate; but I am an open enemy, I fight under no mask.” Turning tothe likeness drawn by Paul and John of Christ’s great rival and opponent, and finding the outstanding and essential feature in the portrait absent in the accused, the judge would be constrained to say, “I do not find the charge proven. Go your way; you are not the Antichrist.”

Mohammedanism comes nearer than any other of the opposing systems to the Antichrist of the Bible; yet it falls a long way short of it. Mohamet did not disavow the mission of Jesus; on the contrary, he professed to hold Him in honour as a prophet. And in much the same way do His followers still feel towards Christ. But Islam does not profess to be an imitation of Christianity. Any counterfeit that can be discovered in Mohammedanism is partial and shadowy when placed alongside the bold, sharp-cut counterfeit of Romanism. It requires a violent stretch of imagination to accept Mohammedanism, or, indeed, any other known ism, as a Vice-Christ. Of all systems that ever were on the earth, or are now upon it, Romanism alone meets all the requirements of prophecy, and exhibits all the features of the Vice-Christ; and it does so with a completeness and a truthfulness which enable the man who permits himself to be guided by the statements of the Word of God on the one hand, and the facts of history on the other, to say at once, "This is the Antichrist."

What we have said is meant to indicate the lines on which our demonstration will proceed. We must trace the parallelism betwixt their respective chiefs, Christ and the Pope, along the entire line of their career. In this parallelism lies the essence of Antichristianism, and of course the strength of our argument. It is this counterfeit, so exact and complete, which has misled the world into the belief that this is Christianity, to the waste of ages not a few, the unsettling and overthrow of kingdoms, the stunting of the human understanding, and the loss of millions of immortal souls." J. A. Wylie

It has been said Historicism and this definition of Antichrist is weak because it replies on secular history and histories. This was known to the Reformers and other Historicists and they find the objection odd since all prophecy, including those ssurrounding the first coming of the Messiah, are based on both sacred and profane accounts! (see H. Grattan Guinness, The Approaching End of the Age. I'll see if I can find the direct quote and post it.)

I posted a few links on my blog if anyone is interested.

Nero antichrist? | Feileadh Mor

Calvin on 2 Thess. 2:3, “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 by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. 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.”

Gill on 2 Thess. 2:3, “yet the man of sin is here distinguished from Satan, 2Ti_2:9 nor is any particular emperor of Rome intended, as Caius Caligula, or Nero, for though these were monsters of iniquity, and set up themselves as gods, yet they sat not in the temple of God”
Polemics against the idea that Nero was antichrist:

Francis Turretin’s 7th Disputation
18 Sermons on 2 Thessalonians
The Papacy is the Antichrist
Westminster and London Baptist Confessions

 

[JM]

Dispensationalist John MacArthur on the subject: