I listened to a teaching by Kim Riddlebarger in which he makes the case that there is still a future antichrist to come, and that Nero, the Papacy etc. are not THE antichrist described to appear before the coming of Christ. I have read the threads on the PB on this, but I was wondering if you folks can send me to some good historicist/amillennial sources. The pope makes a lot of sense, more than Nero, because Paul in 2 Thessalonians says that this man of lawlessness was to be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. So how can it be Nero, since Christ has not returned. I can understand that the reformers marked the pope as the antichrist, since they were persecuted by the Papacy, but to be frank, we today aren't persecuted by the Papacy anymore. So Riddlebarger's argument that we are to expect one final future antichrist (that we can name THE antichrist) makes sence, but it does sound very futuristic and dispensational. Any thoughts?