The Roman Pope Is The Antichrist

[One Little Nail]

I found this link today and thought I would share it here on the Forum,

its a book called The Roman Pope Is The Antichrist by Gavin Basil McGrath, who states that its;

A Concise Commentary on the Antichrist, foretold by the Apostle John in I and II John, and by the Apostle Paul in II Thessalonians 2; with an appendix on the mark of the beast and the meaning of 666
(Revised 1st edition 2006; 2nd edition 2010).

The Roman Pope Is The Antichrist, by Gavin McGrath

 

[Leslie]

A different, and increasingly popular view, is that the Antichrist will be Islamist, the Mahdi or the caliph. According to M tradition this "messiah" who is to come will fight against the "Dajjal," a bad guy according to them, one who claims to be the Son of God, who comes and deceives M's into converting to Christianity. It's fascinating reading, like reading a WW2 account about wonderful Adolph Hitler who almost succeeded in liberating Europe from the evil Jews.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

JFK was supposedly to be the anti-Christ, now people are attempting to label Obama the anti-Christ....

Personally, I am leaning towards the agreement that the papalcy(sp?) as a whole, makes up the anti-Christ...

 

[arapahoepark]

A different, and increasingly popular view, is that the Antichrist will be Islamist, the Mahdi or the caliph. According to M tradition this "messiah" who is to come will fight against the "Dajjal," a bad guy according to them, one who claims to be the Son of God, who comes and deceives M's into converting to Christianity. It's fascinating reading, like reading a WW2 account about wonderful Adolph Hitler who almost succeeded in liberating Europe from the evil Jews.

But, that is just newspaper exegesis peddled around by dispensationalists. It also gives too much credence that Islam's prophecies are true.

 

[One Little Nail]

A different, and increasingly popular view, is that the Antichrist will be Islamist, the Mahdi or the caliph.

what was posted contains scriptural exposition & was the unanimous position of the the reformed churches, both Lutheran & Reformed, as well as making it into their creeds & confessions, with the laters Westminster Confessions view of the Antichrist=Papacy being adopted by the Congregationalists (Savoy) & Baptists (1689?), these modern views are both novel & a fable, they don't fit into the prophetic literature which has to be bent, reshaped,moulded, chopped & changed
so that strange & fanciful interpretations can be seen to fit, its safer to go with the Testimony of the Reformed Churches.

According to M tradition this "messiah" who is to come will fight against the "Dajjal," a bad guy according to them, one who claims to be the Son of God, who comes and deceives M's into converting to Christianity. It's fascinating reading, like reading a WW2 account about "wonderful" Adolph Hitler who almost succeeded in liberating Europe from the evil Jews.

though muhammadens are antichrists their false prophetical writings hardly fit the Biblical Predictions, though need to be read & learnt by those folks doing apologetic & evangelistical work amongst them.

 

[One Little Nail]

I'd like to add Grattan Guinness' book Romanism and the Reformation from the standpoint of prophecy to make a 2 fold
witness of the Papacy being the Antichrist of Scripture from an Anglican perspective, he was a strong Protestant in its Classical sense unlike much of Anglicanism today which allows sodomites & women to be Bishops!

http://whitehorsemedia.com/docs/ROMANISM_AND_THE_REFORMATION.pdf

 

[Peairtach]

Fairbairn's good on this too, in his "Interpretation of Prophecy".

 

[Rom]

The Papacy seems to fit very nicely. I don't think the Islamic antichrist theories are correct, and like others I ascribe them to Dispensationalist sensationalism and perpetual news based flights of fancy.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 was the verse that convinced that "pope as antichrist" is probably correct.
"who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The temple of God being the Church of course. The Roman Pontiff sits as the "Vicar of Christ" and "Head" of the Church of God.

That said, it's not a hill I personally am about to die on

 

[One Little Nail]

Yes it really does depends on your Hermeneutics as the Dispensationalists take the Prophecy extremely literally as they do all Prophecy
which has them waiting for the building of the "3rd Temple" for some Future mythical antichrist to arise.

we Reformed look for a spiritual Temple, which is what Paul says we are, The Temple of The Lord & the Israel of God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Papacy seems to fit very nicely. ...
That said, it's not a hill I personally am about to die on

Heh. Well there are seven hills in question.

 

[Rom]

The Papacy seems to fit very nicely. ...
That said, it's not a hill I personally am about to die on

Heh. Well there are seven hills in question.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Robert & others who believe the thread title:

The American Revision of the WCF (1936) which the OPC & PCA hold to, which reads in 25.6 (the italicized portion omitted),

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.​

the 1647 words were omitted at that part as it was felt unwise to bind oneself in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century to a view that certainly convinced the Reformers and the Westminster divines, so overwhelming in their day was the evidence presented to them, yet is not the case in ours today.

There is no doubt the various popes are antichrists, yet our view is that individual popes are “an antichrist” but not “the”; a man of sin, yet not that man of sin. The same may be said of them collectively. John said in his epistles that even in his day there were “many antichrists” (1 Jn 2:18).

I think the value of this is, while holding papal Rome thoroughly antichristian, we are open to seeing and assessing other antichrist manifestations peculiar to the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] and 21[SUP]st[/SUP] centuries.

Be it known I speak from a “modified idealist” amil perspective (others who hold this are G.K. Beale, Dennis E. Johnson, William Hendriksen, Kim Riddlebarger, Vern Poythress, Sam Waldron, Sam Storms, Cornelis Venema, Anthony Hoekema, etc). We see the “beast from the sea” (Rev 13:1) as antichristian persecuting governments – Rome in John’s day, other governments in later days – and the “beast from the earth” (Rev 13:11) as false teachers or false prophets, first in John’s day, and then up through the ages.

If we look about our present world – and our respective cultures (as there are many who are not Americans on this board) – we see many false teachers besides Rome, and many antichristian persecuting governments.

If we only have eyes on Rome we may be blind-sided when our respective governments lower the boom on us, as in demanding our allegiance to them over allegiance to our God and His word. This may well happen in the U.S. – which is becoming a police state (anybody read, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, by John Whitehead?) – which could implement control over our economy and our receiving our pay, Soc. Sec. benefits, and pensions. Don’t laugh – who would have thought we would see our government transform from the America we knew in the 1950s or even ‘80s to what it has become now?

To my thinking the old WCF, honored father though it is to our younger version, locks us into a view that keeps blinders over our eyes to rightly assessing our own times and the threats thereof. We have become Confession-driven in our views rather than Scripture-driven, and this is a great danger.

I’m not of a mind to engage in a drawn-out controversy over this, as I’m sure we can all come up with our respective interpretations of Scripture, and citations from learned men to support our understandings.

The older divines were right to warn against and stay alert to Rome and its incursions, but I think that in our day their old warnings tend to lull us to a sense of complacency. We also err in ascribing the attributes of Babylon to papal Rome solely, while becoming more and more intoxicated to the wine of the great harlot in our entertainment and tech-toy affluent cultures.

Just a responsible opposing viewpoint – for edification of those who are not satisfied with old fare.

 

[One Little Nail]

Steve, I'd like to see your exposition of those passages that protestants hold as referring to The Anti-Christ ie; Little Horn Dan 7, Man of Sin, Son of Perdition 2 Thess 2:3-4, Beast of Rev 13 etc

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Robert,

you’re asking for a lot of exposition! Which is why I said I didn’t want to engage in a long drawn-out controversy on this. Besides, adequate amil exposition of these passages is done by – respectively – Stuart Olyott and E.J. Young (Daniel), Kim Riddlebarger and G.K. Beale (on Antichrist and 2 Thess 2), William Hendriksen, Dennis E. Johnson, G.K. Beale, and Vern Poythress (Revelation).

Or is the point we just go head-to-head with exegetical battering rams? I think more to the point would be mature reflection on eschatology and its schools and how they (via Scriptural exposition) illumine – or cloud – the times we are in at present.

Such an endeavor I have attempted in this thread, Thoughts on “Puritan Eschatology”, from Joel Beeke’s, A Puritan Theology.

 

[One Little Nail]

Hello Robert,

you’re asking for a lot of exposition! Which is why I said I didn’t want to engage in a long drawn-out controversy on this.

Hi Brother/Pastor Steve,
was just looking for a short statement to see how your views compared to the Historicist School.

Or is the point we just go head-to-head with exegetical battering rams? I think more to the point would be mature reflection on eschatology and its schools and how they (via Scriptural exposition) illumine – or cloud – the times we are in at present.

Such an endeavor I have attempted in this thread, Thoughts on “Puritan Eschatology”, from Joel Beeke’s, A Puritan Theology.

though its definitely not a good idea as someone always comes off second best, no pun intended, besides I've seen the carnage in the Jerusalem Blade vs Armourbearer stoush's
will still briefly reply to post #12 & look at the other thread Thoughts on “Puritan Eschatology”, from Joel Beeke’s, A Puritan Theology. # Time Permitting#

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Well, Robert, you taught me a new word – stoush – and I gather it is more English than American, for I had not heard it before. Though I should say that the differences between Rev Winzer and myself are – to my mind – more on the order of swordplay between friends, even though this may become quite vigorous at times, even bruising, as the stakes are often of great consequence.

 

[MW]

"Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.

 

[One Little Nail]

Well, Robert, you taught me a new word – stoush – and I gather it is more English than American, for I had not heard it before. Though I should say that the differences between Rev Winzer and myself are – to my mind – more on the order of swordplay between friends, even though this may become quite vigorous at times, even bruising, as the stakes are often of great consequence.

Hi Steve, the link to stoush said it was an informal Australian/New Zealand term, carnage was hyperbole .
though it is good to see you two brothers acting as christian gentlemen, in the heat of polemic controversy,
towards each other, it sets a good example for the rest of us to follow on the Board.

 

[One Little Nail]

"Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.

Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group, as The Antichrist and man of sin would point to an individual more so would it not, like the papacy an individual in an office. I'm sure the jews had
a concept of an Antimessiah type individual whom they called Armilus.

2 Thess 2:3-4 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

personally, yes the jews became antichristian, but there are many antichrists, do you mean to say that there is a double fulfilment of the antichrist prophecy both jewish & papal, the papacy seems to fit the Scriptural description of these,
particularly as Vicar of Christ is synonymous with Anti-Christ, and the man of sin/son of perdition quote has him sitting in
the temple of God, which in Pauline Terminology represents the Christian Church, which he says has gone into apostasy.

.

 

[Peairtach]

The Thessalonians II passage fits the Papacy well, and also indicates that the "mystery of iniquity" that would lead to the man of sin was already at work in the early NT Church, which fits with the development and emergence of the Papacy by the Fifth Century, rather than a figure who appears near the end of time.

The Apostle John in his letters, indicates that there are many antichrists - e.g. Gnostic "Christianity" is one if them with which he dealt - and yet that "The Antichrist" was coming. The Apostle Paul is evidently talking about "The Antichrist" in II Thessalonians.

In the Book of Revelation we have two symbolic figures which put pressure on the Woman to cause her to apostasise and become the Harlot. The Beast from the Sea represents persecution, quintessentially Nero and the Roman Empire, but not limited to them, and the Beast from the Earth (also called the False Prophet) represents false teachers and antichrists within the visible Church, quintessentially, the Papacy, but not limited to it.

Revelation 17 and 18 indicates that apostate Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church, will be overthrown in history.

Revelation 19 indicates that Christ will defeat unsanctified and prrsecutory worldly powers and false teaching in His Church in history, by the means God has appointed.

Christ will not glorify Himself in and through His Gospel, His Spirit, and His Church, in the same way and to the same extent, if He returns to judge the world before He has made a display of His enemies by these appointed means in history.

The Bible indicates that He will make a thorough display of His enemies in history through the overall and worldwide success of His appointed means which can only be exercised before the end of time e.g. Psalm 110. The Second Advent at the Eschaton is the time for full vindication of Christ and His people and for judgment.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group,

The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her, but covenanted Israel which rejected Christ and was subsequently cast off and identified with the godless world. We tend to read 2 Thess. 2 and assume a "Christian" context, but the relationship between Christianity and national Israel was still being worked out when the apostle wrote. The terms "apostasy," "man of sin," and "son of perdition" are eschatologically defined by the Old Testament vision of the "day of the Lord."

 

[One Little Nail]

Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group,

The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her, but covenanted Israel which rejected Christ and was subsequently cast off and identified with the godless world. We tend to read 2 Thess. 2 and assume a "Christian" context, but the relationship between Christianity and national Israel was still being worked out when the apostle wrote. The terms "apostasy," "man of sin," and "son of perdition" are eschatologically defined by the Old Testament vision of the "day of the Lord."

Paul is definitely refering to the Christian Church, & not Isreal (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17

16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

and also in

1 Cor 6:19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

showing with a two fold Scriptural witness that the true Temple of God is the Christian, thus the 1st Century was still to early for the Great Apostasy to have occurred, it occurred in a later period of the catholic church, though the mystery of iniquity was already at work, the man of sin/son of perdition is that very antichrist or daniel's little horn & Rev 13's Image of the Beast, so was not yet manifest.

did not the Apostle John write his first epistle late first century, even after the book of Revelation, which was
written around 95/96 AD, stating that there were many antichrists, apparently this epistle was written against cernthius
among other reasons, he was an antichrist, but "The" Antichrist had not yet come.

1John 2:18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I'm be interested to see what Old Testament Prophetic "day of the Lord" passages you're referring to, as I have an inkling
that you may be aligning this to the 70AD Destruction to fit it into the 1st Century window.

The Legality of the Covenant relationship between God and fleshly Isreal had been set & finalised, Pentecost showed that the Shekinah Glory of God's manifest presence had been transferred over to the New Covenant people, the skeletal remains that were left had been earmarked for destruction as Dan 9 & Matt 24 clearly show.

 

[MW]

Paul is definitely refering to the Christian Church, & not Isreal (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17

Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense. The passage makes excellent sense when temple is understood to be the temple which symbolised Israel's sacred privileges.

the 1st Century was still to early for the Great Apostasy to have occurred,

According to Romans 11, it was happening before the apostle's eyes. V. 12, "the fall of them." V. 15, "The casting away of them."

I'm be interested to see what Old Testament Prophetic "day of the Lord" passages you're referring to, as I have an inkling that you may be aligning this to the 70AD Destruction to fit it into the 1st Century window.

The 70AD event is not the fulfilment of what the apostle speaks. At the same time, that event would not have been possible without the fulfilment of what the apostle speaks. The apostle is speaking of the revelation of a covenanted nation as an apostate and lawless people, who nevertheless still claim divine privileges on account of the temple.

The Old Testament prophesied of the day of the Lord as a time in which God would shake the existing order and bring in something new. Altering the Jew-Gentile separation was fundamental to that change. The final result of that change would be the man of sin, which would be revealed as a consequence of the apostasy of covenanted Israel. In Ephesians 2 God makes of Jew and Gentile believers one new covenanted man in Christ. That which has been de-covenanted is the man of sin.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some exchanges here:

Matthew: "Antichrist" and "man of sin," in the eschatological context of the New Testament, strictly and properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel after the fulfilment of the promise to the fathers in the coming of Christ. The Papacy is the Christian counterpart of it, so that these appellations are appropriately attributed to the Papacy in relation to the Christian church.​

----

Robert: Matthew are you saying it was the body as a whole or a specific individual within that group​

----

Matthew: The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her, but covenanted Israel which rejected Christ and was subsequently cast off and identified with the godless world.​

Steve: Matthew, I can see where antichrist is part of the eschatological context of the NT and developed in part among the unbelieving Jews (though also in Gnosticism), but having the “man of sin . . . properly refer to the anti-messianic development of the covenant people of Israel” as well is wrong. Okay, there was a forewarning of the “man of sin” in Daniel, but this is not what you are talking about.

And then you say to Robert that both AC and MOS are “The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her” (by which latter I take it you mean the State of Israel today) as though the two were different. Have I understood you right?

And then when Robert says, “Paul is definitely referring to the Christian Church, & not Israel (after the flesh) as he says in 1 Cor 3:16-17”, and you aver,

Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense.​

When you fly such hermeneutical colors I worry about you! And about your influence on others. This is really such murky water I wonder about the wisdom of my wading into it. THIS is why folks are averse to approaching eschatology – such confusion is being disseminated!

 

[MW]

When you fly such hermeneutical colors I worry about you! And about your influence on others. This is really such murky water I wonder about the wisdom of my wading into it. THIS is why folks are averse to approaching eschatology – such confusion is being disseminated!

There is no need to worry. Steve. I recommend a study of the Old Testament which looks at the impact of the day of the Lord on national Israel. Once it is observed that Israel is the focal point of the day of the Lord it should be obvious that the apostle was not speaking of something which lay in the distant future after national Israel had been cut off from unique covenantal privileges. It should be clear that he was speaking of something which is now a matter of history and which we take for granted in our understanding of the church of Jews and Gentiles being the true Israel.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks for your irenic response, Matthew, but my concerns are not allayed. Indeed some references to the "day of the LORD" in the OT refer to the first advent of Christ, as in Malachi 4:5, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.” And there are many others.

Yet also to be reckoned with are those clearly pointing to the coming of Christ in final judgment at the end of time, such as Isaiah 2:10-21 with John in Rev 6:15-17 referring to this Isaiah passage, as well as Peter in his 2nd epistle 3:10 referring to Isaiah 34:1-4, and in verse 8 to "the day of the LORD’s vengeance".

It is not "one size fits all", but discernment must be exercised to apply the "day of the LORD" passages appropriately. Sometimes a first advent fulfillment and a final fulfillment are included together in one comprehensive "day of the LORD". In a sense the "day of the LORD" covers the entire inter-advental period, with the King governing the nations from His throne of power, fulfilling His plan. There is also a vengeance against apostate Israel, and a vengeance against the heathen at the end of time. But I know with your eschatological view we see very differently, and even speak a different language, using the same terms but with different meanings.

You said, "The nation after the flesh. Not national Israel as we know her" – could you please clarify what you are referring to when you say, "national Israel as we know her"?

 

[MW]

Indeed some references to the "day of the LORD" in the OT refer to the first advent of Christ

Steve, I do not think your "two-phase" view will stand up under scrutiny. How can it? The Old Testament prophecies relate to Israel as a covenant people. By amillennial (or inaugurated eschatology) standards, the church is the covenant people and Israel has ceased for ever to be an unique covenant nation. One must espouse a form of dispensationalism to argue that Israel's day of the Lord must have a second phase of fulfilment.

We see national Israel now as another geopolitical nation, stripped of all her covenant privileges and ornaments, and co-existing with the same status as any other nation of the world. The New Testament was written while the nation still functioned as a covenant people with special promises. As the book of Hebrews indicates, the New Testament was written from the standpoint where the new covenant had been established but the old covenant was still lingering. The apostolic age was transitional, and looked forward to the removal of those things which were transient.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Matthew, I wouldn’t call it “two-phase” but rather a general designation, this – day of the LORD – with many referents. It refers often to judgment upon the wicked (for example, against Babylon in Isa 13, though universal judgment is mentioned there also vv 9-13), but may as well refer to the Saviour God coming to save and bless His people (as in Joel, following judgment, “afterward” shall come blessing and the pouring out of God’s Spirit, as seen in the last half of chap 2).

When you use the word “amillennial” we both know you are talking of something quite different that the amillennialism that is current today in Reformed circles, but instead the “full idealism” of William Milligan circa the 1800s. Which form of idealism is refuted by contemporary amils.

The NT church was often the subject of OT prophecy, and often spoken of there as “Israel” or “Jerusalem” (i.e., Isaiah 2:2-4; 65:17 ff), and even today the NT church is spoken of as Israel (Heb 8:8; 3:1-6; Eph 2:12,19; Gal 6:16). So the OT prophecies designating the day of the LORD to Israel in New Covenant times is referring to the NT church.

Part of your error is you refer to the Jewish state as Israel, albeit “national Israel”. I would not go that far, though I concede to political terminology and do use the legal name “the State of Israel”, yet often qualifying that as “imposter Israel”.

When Peter preached the sermon recorded in Acts, saying the words (reiterating Moses in Deut 18),

“For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:22,23)​

it was at this point established that whoever refused to hear Jesus’ words – and those words He gave the apostles to speak in His name – was cut off from the people of Israel. The efficacy of the temple sacrifices were rendered null and void by God, in light of the great and final sacrifice of God the Son in the Person of Christ.

When the physical temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the day of the LORD’s vengeance had formally commenced. And the curses of the broken covenant listed in Deuteronomy 28 have followed the Jewish people down through the centuries, even to this day in 2014. In my book, A Poet Arises In Israel, is written,

I say the rabbis have led my people into the curses of Moses these past twenty-one centuries, for if we had pleased God and were under the sure covenant blessings and protection of Deuteronomy 28, how could we possibly have been spewed from the land to be slaughtered and despised among the goyim two thousand years, and to end up in the ovens of Hitler? The truth is – and only can be! – we have followed treasonous leaders in betrayal of our King, and we have reaped their destruction. O nation of fools, we, to be blinded so long! As the prophets foretold, the Gentiles came to His light, and we followed our teachers into darkness.

Awake, O Israel, for the days further darken, and we need our Mighty One to see our way. Seek out the Messianic Jews among us, and cast off the pretenders who have slain our millions!​

When I use the term “Israel” above I refer to the sleeping elect in world Jewry, or to the global community of Christ the King of Israel. I do agree with you, Matthew, the Jewish State is but “another geopolitical nation, stripped of all her covenant privileges and ornaments, and co-existing with the same status as any other nation of the world.”

What the LORD has in mind for her as a nation-state of Jews I do not know; perhaps He shall draw many of the Jews – from world Jewry as well – to Himself; it may be the land is as a threshing-floor, a place of judgment to separate wheat from chaff. It matters to me, as I have family and friends among the Jews unsaved, deceived by rabbinic darkness.

 

[MW]

When you use the word “amillennial” we both know you are talking of something quite different that the amillennialism that is current today in Reformed circles, but instead the “full idealism” of William Milligan circa the 1800s. Which form of idealism is refuted by contemporary amils.

Steve, You are being dismissive. The interpretation of Revelation is not the subject under discussion. Should you desire to interact with what I have said I am happy to continue the discussion of the relationship of Israel and the church in New Testament eschatology. But I am not interested in listening to another episode of argument by consensus, especially when it is well known that there is no consensus on these topics.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Sorry, Matthew, I didn’t mean to be “dismissive”, just to point out that your use of the word “amillennial” often bears more freight than common usage does, which may reflect on this discussion by engendering confusion.

When you say (post #23) to Robert’s statement that Paul is referring to the NT church in 2 Thess 2 when he speaks of the man of sin in the temple being the pope/papacy (though I differ in that I see a newer and different manifestation than that),

Such is an allegorical interpretation, which would only be necessary where the proper and literal referent did not make sense. The passage makes excellent sense when temple is understood to be the temple which symbolised Israel's sacred privileges​

I have not heard such an interpretation before. Paul’s preponderant use of the word “temple” is in reference to the NT church or to individual believers, as the place where the Spirit of God indwells.