antichrist

[bsd058]

the dating of the book of Revelation lead me to conclude (not trying to convince, just something that sticks out at me) is that John of Patmos is probably not the Apostle John. And that much of the imagery in Revelation is referring to the Roman Empire and the anger directed at them as they just destroyed the temple and Jerusalem sacked.

Revelation pretty much boils down to me as Rev 21:4.

Do you believe the date is late, then?

 

[gord44]

Yes. Sorry should have said that. My guess is the Apostle John was probably already dead. But who knows. Just a personal view. I suspect the early supporters of Revelation attached the Apostle to it, to give it some extra weight and credibility.

 

[bsd058]

JM, in case you haven't listened to them yet, here are some decent lectures from Luther Seminary. I enjoyed his approach to Revelation. Here are the lectures. Just click on the links below and you'll start downloading them as .mp3 .

http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_1.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_2.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_3.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_4.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_5.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_6.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_7.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_8.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_9.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_10.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_11.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_12.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_13.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_14.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_15.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_16.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_17.mp3
http://download.luthersem.edu/media/nt6225/session_18.mp3

They are in order.

 

[JM]

I'll check them out in the near future, for this generation shall not pass before I get to them...God willing... ;-)

Earlier today I listened to the audio that pops up on this site, I'll have to read The Parousia after Durham's work, the audio gave me a lot to think about.

The Parousia: A Careful Look at Our Lord's Second Coming - by James Stuart Russell

 

[JM]

Some stuff on the date of Revelation: Matthew 24 @ Historicism.com - The Prophecies of Jesus

It seems the early church believe Revelation was written at a late date.

 

[JM]

Can the Preterist position on antichrist being Nero (or another emperor) be maintained if the latter date for the writing of Revelation is proven true? Does Preterism depend on the early date for Revelation?

Riddlebarger mentions in his lectures repeatedly that Historicism was held by all Protestants everywhere until about 100 years ago with the advent and popularity of Futurism and Preterism. This isn't the first time I've heard or read that statement.

jm

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Lot of professed Christians have given themselves over to the doctrine of demons, and have Teachers who will tickle their itching ears.

 

[JM]

This morning I read from the gift gord sent me....Calvin's Institutes the following.

Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 7, Section 25:

"To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, alter whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy.

Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God, (2 Thess. 2:4.) In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity, (Dan. 7: 25.) Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask.

But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man, (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2: 3; Dan. 7: 9.) Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church.

Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom."​

When I googled it to post it has already been posted on an RC forum.


2 Thess. 2.3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
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.
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:

Notice that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work" during the time of Paul and that "the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth..." Wouldn't that mean antichrist is more than one person unless that person is 2000 years old?

This to me, and apparently Calvin, seems to indicate a system or office, perhaps both.

 

[JM]

I have to admit that I really have no position on the antichrist.

How about now?

 

[gord44]

What's the historicist view on the antichrist? Or did I miss it? hehe. sorry if you already posted it.

 

[JM]

What's the historicist view on the antichrist? Or did I miss it? hehe. sorry if you already posted it.

The antichrist is revealed as one who teaches a false Gospel, stands in place of Christ and therefore denies Christ and tries to influence politics as a worldly power...the office of the Pope has been identified, confessionally and historically, as the antichrist.

 

[gord44]

interesting. does historicist see the antichrist as multiple people then? almost metaphorically representing anyone at a time and place that would fit your definition? like there have been many anti-christs throughout the ages sort of thing. that makes more sense then the idea of one primary anti-christ that seems to fixate much of Christian eschatology.

 

[JM]

interesting. does historicist see the antichrist as multiple people then? almost metaphorically representing anyone at a time and place that would fit your definition? like there have been many anti-christs throughout the ages sort of thing. that makes more sense then the idea of one primary anti-christ that seems to fixate much of Christian eschatology.

We know that there are many antichrists (1 John 2.18) and the spirit of antichrist was alive and well during the time of Paul (2 Thess. 2.7). We also find scripture revealing antichrist as a person (2 Thess. 2.3-4). I think the papacy would fit this description.

Romanism and the Reformation: From the Standpoint of Prophecy by Henry Grattan Guinness

Grammatically it may mean either an individual or a succession of similar individuals. The context determines that it actually does mean the latter. “The mystery of iniquity,” in which this man of sin was latent, was already working in Paul’s day. The apostasy out of which he was to grow was already in existence. “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” The man of sin, on the other hand, was to continue till the second advent of Christ, which is still future; for he is destroyed, as it is distinctly stated, only by the brightness of the epiphany. The interval between Paul’s days and those of the still future advent was then to be filled by the great apostasy in either its incipient working as a mystery of iniquity or its open manifestation and great embodiment in the career of ” the man of sin and son of perdition.” That career must consequently extend over more than a thousand years, for the process of gestation is certainly briefer than the duration of life. In this case of the man of sin the two together occupy at least eighteen centuries. What proportion of the period can we assign to the hidden, mysterious growth of this power, and what to its wonderfully active and influential life? The life must of course occupy the larger half, to say the least of it, and therefore, as no individual lives on through ages, we may be sure that it is a succession of men, a dynasty of rulers, that is intended by the ambiguous expression. We, students of the nineteenth century, may be sure of this, though the students of early centuries could not.”
​

Even Dispensationalism cannot avoid the conclusion even when it contradicts their idea of a singular future antichrist. The Pope and the Spirit of Antichrist

Yours in the Lord,

j

 

[JM]

Although I do believe the papacy has accurately been identified as the antichrist of scripture I also believe all forms of works religion are false religions are the handmaid of antichrist.

Now...who's painting with a broad brush! I'm a nice guy, really...I am.

 

[JM]

John Trapp with a strong warning, "He then that lives and dies a Papist cannot be saved." on Rev 13.8

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Rev. 13.8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

gord, now consider what was already posted about the identity of antichrist.

I hope that helps.

Yours in the Lord,

j

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I just bought a book called "Man of Sin" by Riddlebarger.

 

[JM]

I just bought a book called "Man of Sin" by Riddlebarger.

If I'm not mistaken he believes Nero was the antichrist of Revelation.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

If I'm not mistaken he believes Nero was the antichrist of Revelation.

I haven't read it yet.

 

[JM]

I find faults with all the forms of eschatology but the one thing that bothers me most about the Idealist view would be the fact that no other book of the Bible is understood idealistically. Sure, something are to be understood as ideals, but not the entire book or epistle. I'm interested in your thoughts after you read it.

 

[stenerson]

I've cowered away from studying the book of Revelation. But I find it hard to believe that Catholicism, that hybrid of Pagan Rome and Christianity and which has so dominated New Testament era is not in some way involved in this anti-Christ scheme.