WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Can one believe the Papacy is the Biblical anti-Christ, and still have an orthodox/partial preterist interpretation and approach to Revelation, the sermon on the mount, etc.?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Does not the partial-Preterist understanding typically take Nero to have been the Anti-Christ? From the little that I've studied these issues, I got the impression that was one of the differences between the two views (i.e. Historicist and partial-Preterist), naturally following from their broader framework and nature.
Originally posted by Slippery
Isn't there a difference between the AntiChrist and the Beast? Or are we using these terms interchangably?
Does the AntiChrist= The Beast= The Man of Lawlessness?
Does the False Prophet=Mystery Babylon=The woman that sits on many waters= Ancient Jerusalem?
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Slippery]
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
My name is Gabriel, not Gabrielle. I'm a man.
Originally posted by Preach
Based on my study of Demar and Gentry, Gabe is correct. Anti-Christ does not equal the beast (Nero). They are two distinct persons/entities.
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 f16 by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. f17 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.
take it easy brother, it wasn't intentional.Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
My name is Gabriel, not Gabrielle. I'm a man.
Originally posted by rgrove
Not that I'm aware of Andrew. Nice project for you to do and share with the rest of us lazier types when you're done!
Originally posted by rgrove
Eroll Hulse explains the Puritan position this way:
"4. This antichrist was already in preparation at the time of Paul´s writing. For the mystery already operates (to gar musterion êdê energeitai).What was this power or principle already at work? In his letter to the Galatians Paul expressed his astonishment that so soon there was defection from justification by faith alone to dependence on works. In place of a free gift there is engendered dependence on a system of works which depend on the mass administered by priests, auricular confession, the doctrine of purgatory and merit associated with celibacy, the latter described by Paul as a doctrine of devils (1 Tim 4:1,3)."
Originally posted by Slippery
take it easy brother, it wasn't intentional.Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
My name is Gabriel, not Gabrielle. I'm a man.
Go back and read the exegesis provided for these verses from the time of the reformation up to the 20th century. The Puritan understanding as stated in the WCF was dominant for hundreds of years. Hulse's statement is not comprehensive and I didn't provide it as a comprehensive one. You could pick up Thomas Manton's sermons on 2 Thess 2 in Volume 3 of his works if you'd like a more thorough exposition. The questions was can one have preterist views and still accept that the Roman pontificus maximus is "the" AntiChrist to come. I submit it is possible and it would be rooted in rejecting preterist interpretations 2 Thess 2 and embracing the reformation's view of the texts, the Puritan's views of the text, and the predominant views of those who followed them.Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopiaThat's quite a stretch and replete with eisegesis in my opinion. But, it's just my opinion... If this is how they go about proving it, I doubt I'll ever accept it.
Originally posted by rgrove
Go back and read the exegesis provided for these verses from the time of the reformation up to the 20th century. The Puritan understanding as stated in the WCF was dominant for hundreds of years. Hulse's statement is not comprehensive and I didn't provide it as a comprehensive one. You could pick up Thomas Manton's sermons on 2 Thess 2 in Volume 3 of his works if you'd like a more thorough exposition. The questions was can one have preterist views and still accept that the Roman pontificus maximus is "the" AntiChrist to come. I submit it is possible and it would be rooted in rejecting preterist interpretations 2 Thess 2 and embracing the reformation's view of the texts, the Puritan's views of the text, and the predominant views of those who followed them.Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopiaThat's quite a stretch and replete with eisegesis in my opinion. But, it's just my opinion... If this is how they go about proving it, I doubt I'll ever accept it.
With the current Anti-Christ in Rome arrogantly doling out Indulgences for visiting Cologne while he's there, or partial indulgences for praying for success of the visit, the spirit of antichrist is alive and well there and was working already towards building this man centered religion in Paul's day. I won't write off the Reformation's views quite as quickly as many seem to do today.
Yours In Christ,
Ron
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Can one believe the Papacy is the Biblical anti-Christ, and still have an orthodox/partial preterist interpretation and approach to Revelation, the sermon on the mount, etc.?