I have only now had the opportunity to read this thread. I wish I had arrived a bit earlier because I would like to comment on the original quotes given in the opening posts. About these, I have the following observations:
1. In general, they demonstrate precisely what no one has ever denied about the teachings of the church fathers, viz., that they were largely premillennial, which is not relevant to the question of preterism. One could theoretically be both a preterist and a premillennialist—the question of millennialism being confined to the subject matter of only Revelation 20, a chapter concerning which few preterists would make preteristic claims (that is, it is not the view of any millennial camp that Revelation 20 was ever fulfilled in the past);
2. They did seem to believe in a future "antichrist." A few of them applied this term to "the beast" of Revelation, but most of the quotes do not bring anything from Revelation into consideration (and certainly none of the quotes mention or hint at any theory about the 70th week of Daniel 9, which does not contain any references to any kind of antichrist). Instead, their concept of the future antichrist seems to be drawn entirely from the imagery of the "little horn" of Daniel 7 and "the man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2. I would personally agree with the cited fathers in their belief that the "little horn" and the "man of sin" were yet future in their days. The view that accords best with that of the fathers and of the later reformers is that the man of sin arose at the time of the fall of Rome in the fifth century. This event was still future to those cited above, and they all anticipated it. They can certainly be forgiven if they assumed (wrongly) that these prophecies were to be fulfilled in an individual, rather than (as history has since proved) in a system comprised of a succession of individuals (the papacy);
3. Most preterists would not object to a futurist view of some parts of Revelation, though they would not be likely to identify "the beast" as a future individual. I see the beast as a concept embodied through the centuries, including the present and the future. Most preterists appear to identify the beast with an individual in the past (Nero), and consider that this one manifestation exhausts the concept. Like most preterists, I would describe myself as a "partial preterist." Revelation 13 is not one of the "parts" about which I am a preterist;
4. Although Victorinus seems to have taken the three-and-one-half-years of Revelation as a literal period (which I do not), he seems to be amillennial in that he identifies this period with the "little season" at the end of the so-called millennium. In my earliest amillennial years, I tended to do the same (but no premillennialist would ever do so).
In the first three or four centuries, every Christian writer whose writings have survived for us to examine believed the following:
1. The thing that was at that time hindering the rise of the man of sin was the intact Roman Empire;
2. The man of sin would arise, according to Daniel 7, upon the fall of the Roman Empire;
3. The man of sin would (presumably) be an individual, whose rise must occur before the second coming of Christ.
These three assertions represent the most reasonable way to blend the images of Daniel 7 and 2 Thess.2. The fathers also tended to throw the beast of Revelation into the same pot and assumed he would be the same guy.
To my knowledge, none of these men knew or anticipated that there would be so long a period between the rise of the man of sin and the second coming of Christ, as history has proved there to be. In this matter, we have a better perspective from history, though they who lived beforehand cannot be faulted for their ignorance of things which had not yet played-out in their lifetimes.
Their ignorance, however, demonstrates that it is not they, but scripture, to which we must look for ultimate answers.
The writings of the church fathers on eschatology are not consistently followed by any modern evangelical group of which I am aware, which is just as well. Those today who follow their views on the man of sin (e.g., the reformers) generally do not follow them in their premillennialism.
Most today who follow the fathers in their premillennialism (modern dispensationalists) do not share their views about the church being present to be persecuted by the antichrist.
Those who call themselves "historical premillennialists" do not share the fathers' view that the Roman Empire's fall was the thing that would immediately bring the man of sin into the world. Those who take such a position today must necessarily be "preterists" with reference to their approach to the man of sin.
Those who lived before the events occurred were quite correct in looking at them futuristicly, but, if they interpreted the scriptures about the man of sin correctly, then we do not have that luxury of being futurists, since we live after the events.
The fact that the church can hold a view for hundreds of years and still be mistaken is seen in the fact that premillennialism was the dominant view for over three-hundred years, while amillennialism was dominant for about 1500 years. Regardless which view is actually correct, one certainly must be incorrect. Yet the incorrect view dominated the thinking of the best theologians for hundreds of years, proving that such a concensus of Christian thinkers over an extended period can still be mistaken.
If we say that we ought to believe what ancient Christians believe about a thing like eschatology, the unanswerable question must arise, "Which ancient Christians?" Were any of them infallible? If so, which period did these infallible exegete dominate. To say that the writers of the second and third centuries were the most infallible is only a guess. I think men have been fallible in every period of history, unless they are inspired. That is why I prefer to use the scriptures alone for my authority. When exegeted correctly, they can not mislead.
By the way, I don't think there are many scholars who would attribute the Epistle of Barnabas to anyone mentioned in scripture by that name, and there is no ground for certainty that Clement is the same man mentioned in scripture.
It is indeed interesting that we don't find more about the holocaust of AD 70 in the church fathers than we do. Eusebius, however, in 325, clearly identified that event as the fulfillment of the predictions of Matthew 24.
A Case for Futurism from the Early Church
How do you equate the "man of sin" with the papacy?Steve wrote:The view that accords best with that of the fathers and of the later reformers is that the man of sin arose at the time of the fall of Rome in the fifth century. This event was still future to those cited above, and they all anticipated it. They can certainly be forgiven if they assumed (wrongly) that these prophecies were to be fulfilled in an individual, rather than (as history has since proved) in a system comprised of a succession of individuals (the papacy);
And what if Rome weren't the fourth beast?Steve wrote:In the first three or four centuries, every Christian writer whose writings have survived for us to examine believed the following:
1. The thing that was at that time hindering the rise of the man of sin was the intact Roman Empire;
2. The man of sin would arise, according to Daniel 7, upon the fall of the Roman Empire;
3. The man of sin would (presumably) be an individual, whose rise must occur before the second coming of Christ.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Damon,
The church fathers equated the man of sin with the little horn of Daniel 7. The latter is portrayed as replacing the beast from which it grew (Dan.7:8), when that beast is slain and its body is burned (Dan.7:11).
The reasons for identifying the fourth beast with Rome are probably mostly that that beast seems to immediately succeed the first three, as they succeeded each other. If the first three were Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece, this would make Rome the best candidate historically.
I realize that a strong case is sometimes made to divide Media and Persia into two empires, making Persia the third and Greece the fourth. However, I personally agree with the church fathers in seeing Rome as the fourth.
The power that arose to replace the Roman Empire in Europe was clearly the papacy. Paul says that the man of sin will sit in "the temple of God" (2 Thess.2:4), an expression used elsewhere by Paul exclusively as a reference to the church (1 Cor.3:16-17/ 2 Cor.6:16). Hence, the man of sin, who fills the power void upon the fall of Rome is to be within the church. It is probably in this sense—that the horn is a religious, rather than a merely political entity—that Daniel tells us the little horn will be "different from the first ones" (7:24). Again, this points historically to the papacy.
The defining features on the little horn and the man of sin that are given in scripture are the following. This entity—
1. rises in connection with the fall of the Roman Empire (Dan.7:8, 11)
2. rises when something is removed, which, in Paul's day was hindering its rise to power (2 Thess.2:6-7). In the writings of the early fathers, this hindrance was universally interpreted to mean the Roman Empire.
3. has a mouth that speaks pompous words (Dan.7:8, 11, 20, 25)
4. claims even that he is God (2 Thess.2:4)
5. persecutes the saints (Dan.7:21, 25). It has been estimated that as many as 50 million none Catholics were tortured and/or slain by the popes and their loyal subjects, acting on behalf of the Catholic Church. The Inquisitions are among the best known cases, though some of these statistics refer to war casualties in the pope's determination to crush dissenters. A great number of those thus persecuted were religious dissenters—Paulicians, Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards—who were simply Christians who objected to Romanism prior to the Reformation.
6. is validated by satanically empowered miraculous signs (2 Thess.2:9). Signs such as appearances of Mary, miraculous healings, stigmata, idols moving their eyes, lighting their own candles, etc.—all of these and more have occurred within the Roman Catholic Church and have served to convince many simple-minded devotees that their religion is from God.
Since the papacy fits this composite drawing to a tee, the reformers, agreeing with the fathers, and having the benefit of historical hindsight, unanimously identified the papacy with the man of sin. You can even see this opinion expressed in the translators' dedication to King James on the first page of any KJV Bible.
This unanimity of scholars does not, of course, prove them correct in their identification. However, their conclusions rest upon just the kind of comparison of prediction with subsequent historical fulfillment that we all use in identifying Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament prophecies.
Certainly, no alternative identification can possibly be suggested that better fits the scriptural description.
The church fathers equated the man of sin with the little horn of Daniel 7. The latter is portrayed as replacing the beast from which it grew (Dan.7:8), when that beast is slain and its body is burned (Dan.7:11).
The reasons for identifying the fourth beast with Rome are probably mostly that that beast seems to immediately succeed the first three, as they succeeded each other. If the first three were Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece, this would make Rome the best candidate historically.
I realize that a strong case is sometimes made to divide Media and Persia into two empires, making Persia the third and Greece the fourth. However, I personally agree with the church fathers in seeing Rome as the fourth.
The power that arose to replace the Roman Empire in Europe was clearly the papacy. Paul says that the man of sin will sit in "the temple of God" (2 Thess.2:4), an expression used elsewhere by Paul exclusively as a reference to the church (1 Cor.3:16-17/ 2 Cor.6:16). Hence, the man of sin, who fills the power void upon the fall of Rome is to be within the church. It is probably in this sense—that the horn is a religious, rather than a merely political entity—that Daniel tells us the little horn will be "different from the first ones" (7:24). Again, this points historically to the papacy.
The defining features on the little horn and the man of sin that are given in scripture are the following. This entity—
1. rises in connection with the fall of the Roman Empire (Dan.7:8, 11)
2. rises when something is removed, which, in Paul's day was hindering its rise to power (2 Thess.2:6-7). In the writings of the early fathers, this hindrance was universally interpreted to mean the Roman Empire.
3. has a mouth that speaks pompous words (Dan.7:8, 11, 20, 25)
4. claims even that he is God (2 Thess.2:4)
5. persecutes the saints (Dan.7:21, 25). It has been estimated that as many as 50 million none Catholics were tortured and/or slain by the popes and their loyal subjects, acting on behalf of the Catholic Church. The Inquisitions are among the best known cases, though some of these statistics refer to war casualties in the pope's determination to crush dissenters. A great number of those thus persecuted were religious dissenters—Paulicians, Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards—who were simply Christians who objected to Romanism prior to the Reformation.
6. is validated by satanically empowered miraculous signs (2 Thess.2:9). Signs such as appearances of Mary, miraculous healings, stigmata, idols moving their eyes, lighting their own candles, etc.—all of these and more have occurred within the Roman Catholic Church and have served to convince many simple-minded devotees that their religion is from God.
Since the papacy fits this composite drawing to a tee, the reformers, agreeing with the fathers, and having the benefit of historical hindsight, unanimously identified the papacy with the man of sin. You can even see this opinion expressed in the translators' dedication to King James on the first page of any KJV Bible.
This unanimity of scholars does not, of course, prove them correct in their identification. However, their conclusions rest upon just the kind of comparison of prediction with subsequent historical fulfillment that we all use in identifying Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament prophecies.
Certainly, no alternative identification can possibly be suggested that better fits the scriptural description.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Steve.
In the past on this forum, a couple other alternatives have been suggested. One of them, for instance, identifies the fourth beast as not the Roman Empire but rather the Moslem Empire.
Regardless of the proper identification, let's look at some of the verses associated with this "little horn" in Daniel 7:
According to verse 23, this little horn heads a kingdom which "devours the whole earth" and "breaks it in pieces." How does this fit with the papacy? What would this mean, spiritually speaking? IMHO, it doesn't seem that the papacy ever ruled the whole earth.
According to verse 25, this little horn will "wear out the saints of the Most High," or in more modern English, make them very weary so that they give up on either God, doing what they know is right, or both. I'm not sure I understand how this would fit the papacy.
To me, this is talking about a time when trusting in God and doing what's right is extremely difficult, simply because there's little love left in the world. Doing the least little thing (like getting a job, finding a trustworthy babysitter, etc.) becomes as hard as climbing Mount Everest. Would you agree with this assessment?
I'm also not sure when any pope has claimed to be God, as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 shows that the man of sin does. The "vicar of Christ," maybe, but not God - or at least not that I'm aware of. And furthermore, it doesn't make sense to me that the papacy could "sit in the Temple of God" - meaning the Church, the Body of Christ - if in fact there are many, many Christians outside of the Catholic Church who don't adhere to papal authority. What, is he just sitting in half of a spiritual Temple?
By the way, in your mind, are the little horn of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 one and the same, or are they different? If different, then how so?
I'm curious of your opinion here, as some of the verses in Daniel 8 would also seem to indicate that the little horn couldn't be the papacy.
Damon
Ummm...although I would concede that historically speaking, the early Christians did believe that Rome was the fourth beast, I would hesitate in presuming that there is no alternative identification which can better fit the Scriptural description. I did pose the question, what if Rome weren't the fourth beast, for precisely that reason.Steve wrote:Certainly, no alternative identification can possibly be suggested that better fits the scriptural description.
In the past on this forum, a couple other alternatives have been suggested. One of them, for instance, identifies the fourth beast as not the Roman Empire but rather the Moslem Empire.
Regardless of the proper identification, let's look at some of the verses associated with this "little horn" in Daniel 7:
According to verse 23, this little horn heads a kingdom which "devours the whole earth" and "breaks it in pieces." How does this fit with the papacy? What would this mean, spiritually speaking? IMHO, it doesn't seem that the papacy ever ruled the whole earth.
According to verse 25, this little horn will "wear out the saints of the Most High," or in more modern English, make them very weary so that they give up on either God, doing what they know is right, or both. I'm not sure I understand how this would fit the papacy.
To me, this is talking about a time when trusting in God and doing what's right is extremely difficult, simply because there's little love left in the world. Doing the least little thing (like getting a job, finding a trustworthy babysitter, etc.) becomes as hard as climbing Mount Everest. Would you agree with this assessment?
I'm also not sure when any pope has claimed to be God, as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 shows that the man of sin does. The "vicar of Christ," maybe, but not God - or at least not that I'm aware of. And furthermore, it doesn't make sense to me that the papacy could "sit in the Temple of God" - meaning the Church, the Body of Christ - if in fact there are many, many Christians outside of the Catholic Church who don't adhere to papal authority. What, is he just sitting in half of a spiritual Temple?
By the way, in your mind, are the little horn of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 one and the same, or are they different? If different, then how so?
I'm curious of your opinion here, as some of the verses in Daniel 8 would also seem to indicate that the little horn couldn't be the papacy.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
I don't know about that
Damon wrote:
Damon wrote:
Damon wrote:
Pope Pious XI on April 30 1922 said, "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on this earth"
Pope Nicolas said "Wherefore if those things I do be said not to be done of man but of God, what can you make me but God." And also in the same letter "Wherefore, I conclude commanding, declaring, and pronouncing, to stand upon the necessity of salvation that every creature be subject to me."
In my opinion, the papacy fits little horn and the man of sin quite well just as 100% of the church fathers expected to see after the fall of the Roman empire (as I understand it).
I would have to disagree Damon. It seems to me that during the middle ages, the papacy did rule over the whole Christianized empire in Europe by the threat of putting entire nations under the interdict if they didn't submit to the authority of Rome. No need to to take this overly literally here and say that Rome needed to rule over the Aborigenes in Australia in order to say it ruled over the whole world.According to verse 23, this little horn heads a kingdom which "devours the whole earth" and "breaks it in pieces." How does this fit with the papacy? What would this mean, spiritually speaking? IMHO, it doesn't seem that the papacy ever ruled the whole earth.
Damon wrote:
Also in the middle ages, it is estimated that the church or Rome persecuted and killed 50 million "other" Christians that didn't adhere to it's doctrine. Under such circumstances, I think most of us would be pretty "worn out" living simply by trying to remain faithful to God rather than a man-made religious system.According to verse 25, this little horn will "wear out the saints of the Most High," or in more modern English, make them very weary so that they give up on either God, doing what they know is right, or both. I'm not sure I understand how this would fit the papacy.
Damon wrote:
Pope Leo the VIII in 1897 said "We [the popes] hold the place of Almighty God on earth"I'm also not sure when any pope has claimed to be God, as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 shows that the man of sin does. The "vicar of Christ," maybe, but not God - or at least not that I'm aware of. And furthermore, it doesn't make sense to me that the papacy could "sit in the Temple of God" - meaning the Church, the Body of Christ - if in fact there are many, many Christians outside of the Catholic Church who don't adhere to papal authority. What, is he just sitting in half of a spiritual Temple?
Pope Pious XI on April 30 1922 said, "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on this earth"
Pope Nicolas said "Wherefore if those things I do be said not to be done of man but of God, what can you make me but God." And also in the same letter "Wherefore, I conclude commanding, declaring, and pronouncing, to stand upon the necessity of salvation that every creature be subject to me."
In my opinion, the papacy fits little horn and the man of sin quite well just as 100% of the church fathers expected to see after the fall of the Roman empire (as I understand it).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Re: I don't know about that
Why not? How do we know that that isn't what this passage means? How can we prove what it DOES mean?Christopher wrote:I would have to disagree Damon. It seems to me that during the middle ages, the papacy did rule over the whole Christianized empire in Europe by the threat of putting entire nations under the interdict if they didn't submit to the authority of Rome.
No need to to take this overly literally here and say that Rome needed to rule over the Aborigenes in Australia in order to say it ruled over the whole world.
Err...I think you missed my point. Wearing out the saints is not the same as persecution, or else it would have been phrased that way in the text. There's persecution going on too. Wearing out the saints seems to have to do with a lack of love in the world, not simply persecution, making day-to-day living extraordinarily difficult.Christopher wrote:Also in the middle ages, it is estimated that the church or Rome persecuted and killed 50 million "other" Christians that didn't adhere to it's doctrine. Under such circumstances, I think most of us would be pretty "worn out" living simply by trying to remain faithful to God rather than a man-made religious system.
For instance, would you think that it's more difficult now to get and keep a steady, well-paying job that is able to comfortably provide for a family as opposed to, say, fifty years ago? I would! Simply providing for a family seems to me to be a lot more of a physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually wearying proposition than it used to be. And things are getting worse.
[snip other quotes]Christopher wrote:Pope Leo the VIII in 1897 said "We [the popes] hold the place of Almighty God on earth"
Are any of these intended to mean that the papacy replaces God? That seems to be the intended meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, which would nicely parallel the historical passage in Daniel 11:36-38. That's why I don't think this fits.
By the way, a biblical prophet would have that same authority, as the "vicar of Christ on earth" to use Catholic terminology. They would have the authority to dictate how Christians should obey God, just as these popes were claiming. I believe the Catholic Church was correctly preserving the institution of authority from the early church - at which time most of the local congregations, including the one at Rome, were led by prophets! - but that it forgot where that authority came from and how it was supposed to be used. The Pope today is certainly not a prophet, in any case.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the secret of lawlessness is already at work; only the one who now restrains it will do so until it is out of the way.Those who call themselves "historical premillennialists" do not share the fathers' view that the Roman Empire's fall was the thing that would immediately bring the man of sin into the world. Those who take such a position today must necessarily be "preterists" with reference to their approach to the man of sin.
These words of Paul seem to indicate that the restrainer is indeed the World Government of his day (the Roman Empire). But since that empire fell, others governments replaced it. Could not the restraining force simply be that of governmetn. The day may not be too far off until another World Government is in control. When that one falls, Government itself may fail, so that there will be nothing to restrain lawlessness. ALL FUTURE! So we "historical premillenialists" still have a firm basis!
Concerning Clement of Rome, there may be no "ground for certainty" but I think there is a preponderance of evidence that this is the case. Indeed the vast majority of scholars believe it to be so.By the way, I don't think there are many scholars who would attribute the Epistle of Barnabas to anyone mentioned in scripture by that name, and there is no ground for certainty that Clement is the same man mentioned in scripture.
I presume that identification would be found in his church history. Would you give me the reference please, Steve? I couldn't find it.It is indeed interesting that we don't find more about the holocaust of AD 70 in the church fathers than we do. Eusebius, however, in 325, clearly identified that event as the fulfillment of the predictions of Matthew 24.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Hi Damon,
You wrote:
You wrote:
I don't know whether or not it's more difficult to provide a living for a family than it was 50 years ago. It doesn't seem that way to me. The industrial revolution wasn't exactly the epitome of high living for the average working man. I think that's a rather subjective observation. I actually think we are quite spoiled in this day and age when it comes to that.
You wrote:
Peace bro. God bless.
You wrote:
The answer I gave to the objection you raised was simply to point out that it's not necessary to conclude that the papacy has never ruled the whole world. My intent was not to prove that it has, or prove what the passage in question means. It was only to show that it is certainly possible to reasonably apply it to the papacy, as many greater minds than mine have done.Why not? How do we know that that isn't what this passage means? How can we prove what it DOES mean?
You wrote:
You may be right that I missed your point. In my translation (NKJV), the word is persecution. It may be better translated "wear down" or "wear out" but either way you look at it, it's persecution of some form. I personally would feel rather weary if I had to worry about myself and family being persecuted for what we believe (as was the case in the middle ages).Err...I think you missed my point. Wearing out the saints is not the same as persecution, or else it would have been phrased that way in the text. There's persecution going on too. Wearing out the saints seems to have to do with a lack of love in the world, not simply persecution, making day-to-day living extraordinarily difficult.
For instance, would you think that it's more difficult now to get and keep a steady, well-paying job that is able to comfortably provide for a family as opposed to, say, fifty years ago? I would! Simply providing for a family seems to me to be a lot more of a physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually wearying proposition than it used to be. And things are getting worse.
I don't know whether or not it's more difficult to provide a living for a family than it was 50 years ago. It doesn't seem that way to me. The industrial revolution wasn't exactly the epitome of high living for the average working man. I think that's a rather subjective observation. I actually think we are quite spoiled in this day and age when it comes to that.
You wrote:
I don't get the point here. Any man that claims to be God on earth is by default suggesting that he is replacing God. Jesus Himself is God on earth through His body, and only He is the head, not any pope...prophet or not.Are any of these intended to mean that the papacy replaces God? That seems to be the intended meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, which would nicely parallel the historical passage in Daniel 11:36-38. That's why I don't think this fits.
Peace bro. God bless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
So what you're saying is that it's okay to convict the papacy as being the man of sin, as it were, because he "could be." Because that passage "could mean" something other than a government which literally rules the whole world.Christopher wrote:The answer I gave to the objection you raised was simply to point out that it's not necessary to conclude that the papacy has never ruled the whole world. My intent was not to prove that it has, or prove what the passage in question means. It was only to show that it is certainly possible to reasonably apply it to the papacy, as many greater minds than mine have done.
Umm...if I were a Catholic, you'd be pushing me away from salvation and not towards it.
It is? Are you 100% sure?Christopher wrote:You may be right that I missed your point. In my translation (NKJV), the word is persecution. It may be better translated "wear down" or "wear out" but either way you look at it, it's persecution of some form.
According to Strong's, this word (#1080) is bela, meaning "to wear away, wear out, figuratively to harass constantly." This word is derived from balah (#1086), which means to wear out or become old but the derivation is restricted to the mental sense only.
I'm no Hebrew expert, but to me that doesn't clearly indicate physical persecution, with absolute 100% certainty.
Really? I'm quite surprised. My grandmother says that this day and age is a lot more stressful than it ever used to be.Christopher wrote:I don't know whether or not it's more difficult to provide a living for a family than it was 50 years ago. It doesn't seem that way to me. The industrial revolution wasn't exactly the epitome of high living for the average working man. I think that's a rather subjective observation. I actually think we are quite spoiled in this day and age when it comes to that.
Errr...did any of these popes claim to be God instead of God? In other words, did they deny God's existence and substitute themselves? (Daniel 11:36-38 )Christopher wrote:I don't get the point here. Any man that claims to be God on earth is by default suggesting that he is replacing God. Jesus Himself is God on earth through His body, and only He is the head, not any pope...prophet or not.
By the way, Elihu as much as claimed to be a substitute for God on earth in Job 33:6. So the idea of a "vicar of Christ" doesn't seem to me to be intrinsically wrong.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Didn’t some one say earlier in this thread that Scripture should be paramount regardless of what the early fathers said? Is there a “restrainer” in the Scriptures that has some relation to Israel and or the Church or a related topic dealing with the End Times?Quote:
Those who call themselves "historical premillennialists" do not share the fathers' view that the Roman Empire's fall was the thing that would immediately bring the man of sin into the world. Those who take such a position today must necessarily be "preterists" with reference to their approach to the man of sin.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the secret of lawlessness is already at work; only the one who now restrains it will do so until it is out of the way.
These words of Paul seem to indicate that the restrainer is indeed the World Government of his day (the Roman Empire). But since that empire fell, others governments replaced it. Could not the restraining force simply be that of government. The day may not be too far off until another World Government is in control. When that one falls, Government itself may fail, so that there will be nothing to restrain lawlessness. ALL FUTURE! So we "historical premillenialists" still have a firm basis!
I think there is a candidate that is mentioned in the book of Daniel who is actively involved in restraining. And when this entity, stands down from standing in the gap, times of unparalleled distress are supposed to happen. Shouldn’t we be discussing this candidate before we discuss the theories of Roman Empire or the Holy Spirit as Restrainer?
Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (JPS)
Translators seem to have a fit with the dual usage of the word that is translated in to “stand up” and “standeth”. Hebrew applied dual meanings to the word like we do in English and it still doesn’t help. In English we can stand up beginning an activity or stand down as is ceasing an activity.
BDB has the following:
H5975
עמד
‛âmad
BDB Definition:
1) to stand, remain, endure, take one’s stand
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to stand, take one’s stand, be in a standing attitude, stand forth, take a stand, present oneself, attend upon, be or become servant of
1a2) to stand still, stop (moving or doing), cease
1a3) to tarry, delay, remain, continue, abide, endure, persist, be steadfast
1a4) to make a stand, hold one’s ground
1a5) to stand upright, remain standing, stand up, rise, be erect, be upright
1a6) to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear, rise up or against
1a7) to stand with, take one’s stand, be appointed, grow flat, grow insipid
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to station, set
1b2) to cause to stand firm, maintain
1b3) to cause to stand up, cause to set up, erect
1b4) to present (one) before (king)
1b5) to appoint, ordain, establish
1c) (Hophal) to be presented, be caused to stand, be stood before
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1637
I remember finding passages in the OT, that I can’t seem to find in my paper work right now, that showed how opposing meanings were a natural way of understanding the words when used in the same phrase as occurs in Daniel 12:1.
So as I look at it in Strong’s since I’m not a Hebrew scholar;
Dan 12:1 And at that1931 time6256 shall Michael4317 stand up,5975 the great1419 prince8269 which standeth5975 for5921 the children1121 of thy people:5971 and there shall be1961 a time6256 of trouble,6869 such as834 never3808 was1961 since there was4480, 1961 a nation1471 even to5704 that same1931 time:6256 and at that1931 time6256 thy people5971 shall be delivered,4422 every one3605 that shall be found4672 written3789 in the book.5612
It seems to me that Michael could be standing still and ceasing from his activity of standing up for Israel. And if that holds, then would it not be more likely to consider Michael as lead candidate for Restrainer? Any thoughts, help or opinion?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Always willing to listen and consider by the grace of God,
Cameron Fultz
Cameron Fultz