RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Berkhof
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 Peter
Originally posted by Mayflower
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by Mayflower
Iam wondering, that those who hold to the believe that the Pope is the antichrist, why they don't think that Nero can't be the antichrist ?
The short answer is that the antichrist is clearly someone who sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2.4) and therein exalts himself against God, meaning he opposes Christ from within the Church. Nero never professed to be a Christian. Antichrist speaks of apostasy: an unbeliever is not an apostate.
I agree with John 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 5 by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. 6 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.
I ask Kenneth L. Gentry this question, and he responded :
My short response to this is:
(1) The Pope doesn't sit in a temple. The church as the temple is the people, not a building, not a temple.
(2) 2 Thess 2 makes several statements that absolutely forbid the Pope being the "man of sin," two of which are: (a) He does not present himself as God (2:4b). (b) The Pope was not "restrained" in the year AD 52 (the date of the writing of 2 Thess.) The papacy arose much later in church history. (I would recommend purchasing my book Perilous Times. One whole chapter is given over to explaining 2 Thess 2.
(3) The "Antichrist" is not mentioned in 2 Thess 2. In fact, it is ONLY mentioned in 1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3 and 2 Jn 7. The whole idea of the Antichrist as held by so many Christians is directly contradictory to the only statements about the Antichrist in the Bible. Interestingly, many Christians believe the book of Revelation tells us a lot about Antichrist, despite the fact the word "Antichrist" does not occur even one time in Revelation -- even though John is the only person in the Bible to use the term Antichrist (1 Jn; 2 Jn).
(4) In the only places in the Bible where Antichrist is mentioned (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3 and 2 Jn 7) we learn that: (a) John tells us there were "many antichrists" in his day (in the first century); the papacy did not exist then. (b) John tells us the Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. Read these verses and see if you can develop a picture of: (a) Antichrist being one man. (b) Antichrist not existing already in the first century. (c) Antichrist being an apostate Christian.
(5) Given all of these elements I don't know why anyone would think Antichrist is a "professed Christian."
(6) The apostasy spoken of in 2 Thess 2 is not committed by the "man of sin." Whatever the apostasy is, it occurs in the man of sin's context but not by the man of sin himself.
I agree with Calvin that the idea of Nero redivivus (that Nero himself was to return in the first century after he had died) is a myth. Calvin is one of my favorite theologians, but I believe overall he is mistaken here. We need to understand Calvin and the Reformers in their context: They were fighting a life and death battle against Romanism. This, I believe, colored their reading of Scripture in certain places.
I can comment briefly where Gentry's criticism is weakest
1. Gentry says, "The church as the temple is the people, not a building, not a temple. " he is exactly right. No Historicist, to my knowledge, has ever claimed any pope put his physical image in the literal physical temple. The temple in 2 Th 2 is a symbol of the church, of which the people of God are the living stones. This is precisely the genius of Satans masterwork the Papacy. It is within the church and it is a brilliant counterfeit of Christianity.
2. The Pope does present himself as God. I think this sort of ignorance in our clergy about the popish church is at root of the Presbyterian apostasies to the Romish harlot. I have the following sources from Wylie's book: in canon law (Decretum Gregorii XIII. Destinc 96, Can 7.) and he is called "Lord and God" (Decretales Gregorii IX., Tit. 7.); Pope Innocent in the Decretals says of the Pope, he is "God because he is God's vicar"; Sacrum cere Moniale, "The Apostolic Chair is the seat of God", Decretum of Gregory, "The Roman Pontiff, not as man but as true God, reigns upon Earth" (Daubu 3 581). And better, trying to verify these sources, I discovered this website (scroll down to the 3rd post and you will find more blasphemous claims the pope makes to deity). Further, the Pope claims to be God in his actions, such as accepting worship, inventing sins and claiming power to remit them.
B. Historicists are well aware there was no Pope in the 1st century. The man of sin and the antichristian system is described as the 'mystery of iniquity', this is in direct parrallel and contrast with the mystery of godliness. God manifest in flesh is the mystery of godliness and this mystery gradually unfolded in the history of Redemption. The mystery of iniquity also is a spiritual kingdom, it is the device of satan for deceiving the nations. It was in its infancy in the 1st century in the Gnostics, the litte antichrists, and beginning to work to overturn the power of the presbyter and exalt a single bishop. The Roman Empire was the restrainer preventing the complete ascension of the Papacy b/c of the place of power it occupied and in the heathenish persecutions.
The short answer is that the antichrist is clearly someone who sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2.4) and therein exalts himself against God, meaning he opposes Christ from within the Church. Nero never professed to be a Christian. Antichrist speaks of apostasy: an unbeliever is not an apostate.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
www = 666
Originally posted by JM
Why do we find names for people, heretics, etc. in the Pauline epistles but they never mentions Nero?
Originally posted by BobVigneault
...the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Kenneth Gentry's book isn't so ironclad and convincing nor is the dating of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D. Ask the church fathers like Iraneus what they thought about the matter. Wait a minute, they're not partial-preterists of the Kenneth Gentry stripe either! Duh!
I think the burden of proof is on the partial preterists for the early date. Kim Riddlebarger wrote a nice appendice to his book substantiating a later date on Revelation, and exposing the untenable rationales for a pre-70 A.D. date, in his new book The Man of Sin, which critiques the weaknesses of the pre-70 A.D. dating. I'm not saying it was written as late as 90 A.D., but I merely question the pre-70 A.D. dating. Revelation speaks to the events of 70 A.D. either way "” whether for the historicist, idealist, and perhaps some futurists.Originally posted by BobVigneault
It is not clear whether Ireneus was saying that the Revelation was seen in the reighn of Domitian or if it was John who was seen in the reign of Domitian. Any other church fathers who say that John was written later are simply quote Ireneus. So Ireneus' vague citation is the only reason anyone would suggest a later date. However, as I have already pointed out the internal evidence points toward a pre-70AD writing.Originally posted by Puritanhead
Kenneth Gentry's book isn't so ironclad and convincing nor is the dating of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D. Ask the church fathers like Iraneus what they thought about the matter. Wait a minute, they're not partial-preterists of the Kenneth Gentry stripe either! Duh!
I think the burden of proof is on the partial preterists for the early date. Kim Riddlebarger wrote a nice appendice to his book substantiating a later date on Revelation, and exposing the untenable rationales for a pre-70 A.D. date, in his new book The Man of Sin, which critiques the weaknesses of the pre-70 A.D. dating. I'm not saying it was written as late as 90 A.D., but I merely question the pre-70 A.D. dating. Revelation speaks to the events of 70 A.D. either way "” whether for the historicist, idealist, and perhaps some futurists.
Revelation speaks to the events of 70 A.D. either way "” whether for the historicist, idealist, and perhaps some futurists.