The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Who is the Antichrist?

No

And:

Yes

And:

No, it has been the case since Adam was ejected from the Garden of Eden. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim, I am equally sure your continent's lack of suffering at the hands of the slaughterhouse of souls that is Rome has coloured (or is that "colored"?) the views many North American Calvinists have of Romanism. Many / most of us (Calvinists) in Europe would not dare even refer to it as a "church".

I think you've got a point there. We've never had a King to rule over us, (other than the colonial period) we've never had the oppression by the RCC that has been experienced in Europe; that is bound to make a difference in how the RCC is perceived by most Americans, let alone Christians.

The Antichrist's real name is Nicolae Carpathia! Duh!
Don't you guys ever read???

I used to think it was a guy from my neck of the woods named Billy Bob Appalachia, but LaHaye and Jenkins' exegesis has convinced me otherwise.

I'm not sure that the North Americas' "lack of suffering at the hands of the slaughterhouse of souls . . ." is the problem with many in regard as to how they view Romanism as it is the lack of proper biblical understanding of the issues, e.g., justification by faith. In fact, the lack of having a history of such atrocities committed by Rome may in fact be to one's advantage, since it would not be of any influence in wanting to force one's personal views upon the sacred text. And let us not deny that those atrocities, although committed on both sides of the chasm, albeit to varying degrees, are "history" and not something current. Living in the past is not conducive to one holding the necessary objectivity when reading God's Word, especially if it is intermixed with hatred and/or vindictiveness.

I may live here in North America but let me assure you that I have no affection for Rome. Neither do I consider the RCC to be a part of the true Church. My objections are strictly objective ones, not excluding my interpretation and/or application of Scripture when it comes to the identity of THE antichrist. So, once again, I defer to the matter of hermeneutics; i.e., the right interpretation of those passages which speak of the antichrist and the spirit of the antichrist as penned by the Apostle John. The Roman pope simply doesn't meet the qualifications of THE antichrist. Again, it is not an "office" to which John writes but of a specific person. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

There is an article here on the Highway...that seems to agree with your position. I'm surprised no one has referred to it yet. It is interesting!
The Anti Christ Unveiled

Dave

Pilgrim, I am just not seeing how we can deduce from Scripture that the superlative antichrist referred to is definitely a specific individual rather than an office.

I also see a potential danger in the quest for the perfect hermeneutic, insofar as nothing revealed in history might ever be taken (with confidence) to be a fulfilment of any given prophecy. I wonder how many Jews in Christ's day refused to acknowledge Him because their model of interpretation of the prophecies pertaining to Him excluded it.

It's so simple, really! Read the Scriptures. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" /> They refer to THE antichrist as "he" . . . not "it". Secondly, an office cannot hold to dogma; persons only hold to dogma. Thirdly, there are specific "denials" which the Apostle John says THE and the MANY antichrists can be identified by. The "office" is of one, not "many". Fourthly, THE antichrist is referred to as the man of sin who "is to be revealed". Thus how can an existing "office" qualify as that which hasn't been revealed yet and one which is inextricably tied to the end of the "last days"? And lastly, THE antichrist will be cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer eternal torment along with all the other reprobate persons. This cannot be said to be true of an "office".

What more needs to be said? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Well Robin since they were talking about the antichrist and not the Beast aka the man of lawlessness I figured that they weren't interested in who Nero was. But as another orthodox preterist/postmillenialist I am more than happy to join with you in saying that Nero Caesar was the Beast.

Hmmm... At any given time, it is a man who holds the office. Were there no man, there'd be no office - I think the Reformers saw it that way.

An ecclesiastical office without dogma is like, well, an office without a man to fulfil it. The dogma defines the office.

As for the office being revealed, well, can't we suggest that the few Christians around when the papacy arose were witnesses to something new being revealed in the ostensible "church"? Prior to that, there was nothing so blatantly perditious in the visible church since Judas Iscariot.

And, of course, all who fulfil the Papal office will be cast into the lake of fire.

I'll leave you to your illogical thinking! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim quotes 2 Thes 2:3 in support of a future, individual antichrist:


I tend to think of the great "falling away" as the Jewish apostacy of the first century. It was unbelieving Jews of the generation that rejected and murdered Christ that "filled up the measure" of judgement against them. It was unbelieving Jews whose opposition to the gospel preceded Roman persecution of Christians. In fact it was the Jews who brought the Romans to fight against the gospel (turning Christ over to Pilate and the Apostles over to Roman authorities, etc).

I think that THE antichrist (the man of lawlessness in Thessalonians) could have been the Jewish high priest or chief of the Sanhedrin, and "what restrains him" might have been the Roman government. The Jews were not allowed to put someone to death - they had to bring Jesus to Pilate and the Apostles to Roman governors and officers. The "who" that restrains the Man of Lawlessness might have been one of those Roman officers.

Pure speculation, I admit, but it is based on the phrase in verse 6, " you know what restrains him" and the word now in verse 7 referring to that restraint. At the time 2 Thessalonians was written, this "restrainer" might have been Felix, and "the" Antichrist might have been the chief priest at the time.

I do not see a single future individual as "THE" antichrist.

I don't think the Beast of Revelation is the same person as the man of lawlessness (interesting moniker for this guy, considering Paul's use of the word elsewhere in his writings). And the Apostle John, who coined the term "antichrist" and wrote it's definition in his epistle (1 John 2:18-19), does not use the word "antichrist" in the book of Revelation, where you would think he might have considerable use for the word. The antichrist isn't even mentioned in the book of Revelation (at least not by the term "antichrist"). I tend to think of THE antichrist as a Jewish opponent of the gospel restrained by Rome until that restraint was removed and Rome also became a persecutor of Christians, opposing the gospel as relentlessly as the Jews of Paul's day had done.

Glory to the timeless God of history!

-Robin

So the Reformers were illogical thinkers too, were they? Come on, don't resort to that tactic! If the man of sin can't be defined by his office and dogma, how on earth can he be defined?

Robin,

Although I find little that is appealing in the Preterist view, I must admit that in regard to this matter of the "antichrist", it is far more logical and plausible than the view that insists that the pope and/or the office of pope is the antichrist. Of course I would simply say that there is an "already but not yet" aspect to this matter and thus there will be a future individual who will be the embodiment of the spirit of the antichrists which the lesser "many" antichrists have typified. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,