The Restrainer

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How do you mean?
Trying hard to process this line of thought, yesterday at my uncles funeral both preachers, oh if Jesus would come right now and take us to heaven. We just want to see Jesus????shame I had to tell them I see him, I see him in uncles, aunts ,friends ,family ,strangers. He never left.

Anyone who hosts the Spirit of God bares fruit, it’s pretty simple to understand what this fruit is. For those who don’t understand I’m going to give a clue it starts with the letter CHRIST.
 

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But it says in 2 Thess 2 that the MOS is revealed after the restrainer is taken away, so the world and the flesh must still be there after that.

You make a valid point but consider also:
Isaiah 66:4-5
[4] I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. [5] Hear the word of the Lord , ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

Your brothers that hated you and cast you out for MY sake.
He shall appear to your joy...
and they will be ashamed.

1 Peter 4:14
[14] If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye ; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

I do get what you are saying and I really don’t know. He said they will be ashamed. When? Consider all the verses that promise those who trust in Him will never be ashamed...and all those that He says do not will be ashamed. Personally and by no means expecting anyone to agree but Romans 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

And Ephesians 1:17-18
[17] That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: [18] The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

That you may know the hope of his calling...Your brothers that hated you and cast you out for MY sake. (As Joseph was cast out by his brothers...to save many alive). He shall appear to your joy...
and they will be ashamed.
Ashamed why? Luke 6:40
[40] The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waiting on him

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But it says in 2 Thess 2 that the MOS is revealed after the restrainer is taken away, so the world and the flesh must still be there after that.

For the sake of conversation I would ask you how you see Romans 11:25-28
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. [26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: [27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. [28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

“That blindness in part has happened to Israel” What do you think restrains them from seeing? And also if in 2 Thess 2 what is taken out of the way and that man of sin is revealed who He (Jesus) destroys with the brightness of His coming...when do you think death is swallowed up in victory? Just trying to understand if you believe that man of sin (the disobedient) is someone other than sin unto death in Adam rather that obedience unto righteousness in Christ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waiting on him

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
For the sake of conversation I would ask you how you see Romans 11:25-28
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. [26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: [27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. [28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

“That blindness in part has happened to Israel” What do you think restrains them from seeing?

Not all who are called Israel belong to Israel. Romans 9:6. God turned the gospel to the gentiles and we are grafted into the true vine by faith. Only God knows when that fulness (completion) of that vine is accomplished.

when do you think death is swallowed up in victory?

It could be speaking about the rapture (which may occur as the result of the Restrainer, in this case the HS, is taken out of the world, taking those sealed with the Spirit along with Him) or it could be talking about the end of death itself 1 Corinthians 15:26 that occurs in Rev 22 when God creates the new heavens and new earth. Scripture says there will be no more death, sadness, wars, hunger, etc.
 

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
who He (Jesus) destroys with the brightness of His coming...when do you think death is swallowed up in victory?

I think this is saying that it will occur after the rapture. Those raptured will be given immortal bodies, their victory over death being assured. I think there will still be a mortal fleshly world after the rapture that the AC will live and reign over for a time, but when Jesus does come again, that is what He will do to the AC. Destroy AC with His coming.
 

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Just trying to understand if you believe that man of sin (the disobedient) is someone other than sin unto death in Adam rather that obedience unto righteousness in Christ?

Could you rephrase this part? Thanks
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I thought you wanted a "reasonable, Bible based discussion"? So far, all I see is an attempt to cast doubt on what are facts of history as a means to derail any such discussion.
Bible based, yes. You want to discuss historical texts, which can be biased. I'm not even opposed to that, I just want to ask caution when assigning weight to texts that are NOT scripture. I'm not exactly sure how that can get me into trouble for being "unreasonable".

The reasonable, Biblical historic facts are:

1) In 2 Thess. 2, the early church knew what was the Restrainer because Paul told them so:

2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth (what "restraineth") that he (Man of Sin) might be revealed in his time.​
Yes, they knew, but the text doesn't say outright.

2) The Early Church Fathers with one unanimous voice said that Paul told the early church it was the Roman Empire and expected the Man of Sin to arise after its fall...without exception.
If you are making a claim that ALL the Early Church Fathers claimed they knew what Paul told the Church in regards to the identity of this restrainer, then I believe the onus is upon you to provide references to these texts, does it not?
Bad doctrines and erroneous biblical beliefs come from people just 'assuming' this Chinese whispers assertions are true. If I assume what you've just said is true, and base my understanding of biblical texts upon it, then in point of fact, I'm basing my understanding of scripture on nothing more than some randomn fellows say-so.
Not meaning to insult you, you may be a fine fellow with a very sound understanding of scripture and a very deep historical basing. But it would be a horrendous insult to scripture on my part to just assume both those things and 'go with it'.

If you are attempting to base your interpretation of a scriptural passage on historical writings, rather than on other biblical passages (which we can be assured of unbiased truth), then I'm sorry, but I most certainly am going to want to see evidences of these writings.


3) If the Restrainer were truly an "agent of holiness", either the Holy Spirit, the "Holy Spirit filled church", "Michael the Archangel", etc, etc, etc, then why didn't Paul freely say so?
  • Would not doing so be a tremendous encouragement to the early, fledgling, persecuted church - that despite their wretched state, God's "agent of holiness" has a celestial boot on the throat of the Man of Sin?
  • Does it make sense to assume that Paul - who not even once failed to proclaim God's might and power to pagans, be they kings to commoners - had suddenly become too timid to openly proclaim the identity and power of this supposed "agent of holiness" Restrainer to God's own blood-washed people?
Why does Paul not state who the Restrainer is either way? It is surely as easy to say the restrainer is evil just as it is to say it is good?
You assume that the Church was NOT immensely encouraged. Paul has just told them that a great evil is being restrained. And that in God's time, it will be released, and the Christ will slay him by the breath of his mouth at his coming. Does this sound like God is NOT in control of the situation? Even IF it's an evil force restraining the man of lawlessness, it is still fully under the bidding and timing of God. And THAT is a great comfort.
Also...didn't you just point out that Paul knew who the restrainer was, and told these people. So...they clearly know who and what this 'restrainer' is. The real question that needs to be asked here is...why didn't Paul see fit to write it in his letter? And we may never know that. It could be that information isn't essential to our salvation and walk. It could be that when this man of lawlessness is revealed, it will be so obvious to us, that all speculation will become moot.
Either way, I don't think we need worry about Paul's timidity, or his holding the identity back from the Thessalonians.

4) Is it reasonable to doubt the writings of the ECF when they lived not too far removed from the day of Paul and were well aware of the prevailing teachings of that church imparted to them by him?
I didn't say I doubted them. I think a lot of respect and consideration ought to be given to them. But we must be aware that these were but men writing. They were not inspired, therefore their thoughts and opinions are liable...just as we have today...to be faulty or based upon misunderstandings. And we know from scrpture, that even back then, even with the apostles there, that there were plenty of false teachings.
Just because these people lived 'right next to Paul's generation' doesn't make them infalible.

5) Does not the "remarkable unanimity" of the ECF about the identity of the Restrainer at the very least demand investigation as to why there conclusions were so identical?

So, which Restrainer makes more sense: an "agent of holiness" or Pagan Rome?
Again...I would want to see and read these 'unanimous' sources first.
If...If I found that most of these writers claimed this, and IF I found that as a general rule these writers also adhered to orthodox teachings of scripture, then yes, it would at the very least demand investigation.
As far as 'which making most sense'? I think as per 1 John, we can expect many 'antichrists' throughout this age. But, we can also expect a final one. 2 Thess 2 talks about a final man of sin that Jesus Christ will kill at his return. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure Pagan Rome will be here at that time TO cease it's restraint on that final 'man'....
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Luke 18:30 Lexicon: who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

is likely more a primer for verifying the definition of Eternal as "age-long," constructed so as to allow one to keep believing "eternal" means "forever" if they want to do so; being as how the same root is used on purpose, when other expressions were available, and the juxtaposition of "this time" there for "this age" is even telling imo, iow "Eternal" is being defined concisely from two diff povs imo.

"double-minded" might also clarify a little in that pov?
but I don't want to appear to deny a literal resurrection, Bc I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but I think we have enough other Scripture to make our concept of going up to heaven after we die and becoming immortals pretty much moot, as much as we might like to wish otherwise
I think when it comes to you and me, I'm just going to say; you believe what you think the bible says. And I'm going to believe what I think the bible says.
 

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Could you rephrase this part? Thanks

Sure. I’ll try. the man of lawlessness...is this not the disobedient? The man of sin?
I mean there are only two: either you are a servant of sin unto death ...or of obedience unto righteousness?

Romans 6:16
[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Romans 5:21
[21] That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.


Either sin reigns unto death in a heart...or grace reigns through righteousness by Jesus Christ our Lord? Who are ...or who is the disobedient man, the man of lawlessness, that man of sin if not those who disobey Christ?
2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, [8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: —same time as that man of sin is revealed who He destroys with the the Spirit of His mouth and the “brightness” of His coming.

Galatians 3:1
[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
 
Last edited:

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think this is saying that it will occur after the rapture. Those raptured will be given immortal bodies, their victory over death being assured. I think there will still be a mortal fleshly world after the rapture that the AC will live and reign over for a time, but when Jesus does come again, that is what He will do to the AC. Destroy AC with His coming.

Suggest it is one body operated by the head. One mind which is anti-Christ.

Same as the children of God are of one man...a New Man created in Christ ...a perfect Man in submission to the Head which is Christ. The temple of God. The Habitation of God. Ephesians 2:22
[22] In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. — from which rivers of living water flow. (John 7:38)
[38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

So no. (IMO) flesh (the outward perishes)and this world passes away as He said.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Waiting on him

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Well, yeah, as for the idea of restraining, and deception by Satan, they are linked. But the time of the event in 2 Thess.2 is not... linked to the Rev.20 chapter.

The beginning of 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul is warning the brethren that before Christ's return and gathering of the Church, that man of sin must be revealed along with that apostasy happening.
Except, shouldn't we, as people wanting to dig into the Word, consider WHY these three passages seem connected by these themes? You suggest that timing alone separates them. But doesn't Matt 12 imply that Rev 20 and Satan's 'binding' is in process now? How does that factor into timing? Especially when we start factoring in verses such as 1 Cor 15 that also speaks about the 'Kingdom' being delivered to the Father AT Christ's return. Don't we then start to put this picture together that right now we have a time period where the kingdom advances in the face of Satan's inability to stop it? And IF this IS the biblical picture being put together, what does that say about a 'future Millennial period'?
 

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are we on a wild goose chase looking for things in the future and some man, one man to come on the scene. waiting for the Antichrist to be revealed... 1 John 4:2-5 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: [3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. [4] Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. [5] They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

Greater is he that is in you, than he that is IN the world. Twice the word tells us the spirit of the antichrist “he” is already in the world.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him .

Another Jesus? Wild goose chase would be to say “another Jesus” is going to come but by always looking in the future we miss this “another Jesus” “an impostor” is already here and preached then and today. Paul warned(by the Holy Spirit) to not receive this another spirit, this another Jesus. When considered as one man yet many making up this one man of one spirit and mind being AntiChrist (another Jesus) ...makes clear Paul’s warning that “if you receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” The him being that which wars against Christ.
 
Last edited:

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It is surely as easy to say the restrainer is evil just as it is to say it is good?

I don't think it makes sense for the Restrainer to be evil, for if it were, what interest would it have in prolonging the coming of Antichrist?

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure Pagan Rome will be here at that time TO cease it's restraint on that final 'man'

Yeah I don't really see Pagan Rome fitting the bill here. In futurist terms, the MOS will harness and rule the equivalent of a modern day Roman empire, so it's not exactly 'removed' out of the way as it is a vehicle to further the agenda.

It does sound like you accept a Final singular MOS @Naomi25. I believe this is actually a tenet of Futurism ;)
 
B

brakelite

Guest
I thought you wanted a "reasonable, Bible based discussion"? So far, all I see is an attempt to cast doubt on what are facts of history as a means to derail any such discussion. The reasonable, Biblical historic facts are:

1) In 2 Thess. 2, the early church knew what was the Restrainer because Paul told them so:

2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth (what "restraineth") that he (Man of Sin) might be revealed in his time.​

2) The Early Church Fathers with one unanimous voice said that Paul told the early church it was the Roman Empire and expected the Man of Sin to arise after its fall...without exception.

3) If the Restrainer were truly an "agent of holiness", either the Holy Spirit, the "Holy Spirit filled church", "Michael the Archangel", etc, etc, etc, then why didn't Paul freely say so?
  • Would not doing so be a tremendous encouragement to the early, fledgling, persecuted church - that despite their wretched state, God's "agent of holiness" has a celestial boot on the throat of the Man of Sin?
  • Does it make sense to assume that Paul - who not even once failed to proclaim God's might and power to pagans, be they kings to commoners - had suddenly become too timid to openly proclaim the identity and power of this supposed "agent of holiness" Restrainer to God's own blood-washed people?
4) Is it reasonable to doubt the writings of the ECF when they lived not too far removed from the day of Paul and were well aware of the prevailing teachings of that church imparted to them by him?

5) Does not the "remarkable unanimity" of the ECF about the identity of the Restrainer at the very least demand investigation as to why there conclusions were so identical?

So, which Restrainer makes more sense: an "agent of holiness" or Pagan Rome?
This view of history, which is the only perspective that fits into a whole eschatological framework that leaves no contradictory views that are viable alternatives, has been presented several times by the above writer, and myself, but simply not taken seriously enough, and I believe the sole reason for that is that no-one is willing to seriously consider giving up their own personal opinions, which when considering this thread, and others like it, are totally contradictory to not only one another, but to history and prophecy.
Why does Paul not state who the Restrainer is either way?
And that is a very good question. And the answer is simple, again one that has been presented several times previous, but to closed ears. Here it is again however if anyone is listening...imagine if you will that Paul had told the Thessalonians in person that the pagan Roman empire, who was at that time bitter enemies to the Christian concept of one God and a living resurrected Saviour, was indeed the power that was restraining the coming of the antichrist power, and was there but for a short time until it was taken out of the way. Now imagine you are in Paul's shoes, writing a letter reminding them of this fact. You are about to be specific, when you remember that outside, and all along the highways and bi-ways between where he was and the Thessalonian church, numerous soldiers and non service personnel , Jewish traitors, and others, that would be only too happy to have in their hands definitive proof that Paul was guilty of sedition and treason against the empire, for which evidence may come some reward, and maybe promotion? A clear signed statement by Paul that the Roman empire was soon to fall would be without doubt the most stupid letter for Paul to write. And he didn't, for those obvious reasons.
then I believe the onus is upon you to provide references to these texts, does it not?
I have before, (not meaning to sound too repetitive) offered that evidence, and again, was ignored. But, nevertheless, if anyone cares, here are some examples....
Let me start with Tertullian (160-240 A. D.):

“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder,

until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling

away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its

own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.” “On the Resurrection of the

Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

(Author: There is some debate as to whether the ‘falling away’ referred to here is in reference to the empire, or the church. Some say one, some the other, while some would contend that it can apply equally to both. Either way, Tertullian was certain in his belief that the restrainer was the Roman Empire. That it was Rome itself that inhibited in some way the rise of the antichrist. This was generally accepted throughout the church at that time, and it was common for the church to pray to God that He would keep the Roman power intact in order to keep the antichrist to coming to power in their time. Interesting also is Tertullian’s reference to the ten kingdoms that would result from the break up of Rome. This is a direct reference to Daniel 7 and the ten horns that would grow from the 4th beast, Rome. The Antichrist, according to Bible scholars, was the 11th horn. Tertullian was using the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, that method which viewed prophecy as an historical unfolding throughout history from the time the prophecy was first given, and culminating at the second coming. This is significant when understanding Paul’s letter, because Paul is clear that the Antichrist would appear as soon as Rome moves aside, and that very same Antichrist would still be there to be judged at the second coming. Not futurist, not preterist, but a historicist approach, just like Tertullian.)

In yet another comment, Tertullian states: “The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”

(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

A little later Lactantius,. in the early fourth century wrote: “The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.” (“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

Also early in the fourth century Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386 A. D.)had this to say: “But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.” (Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108 [New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895]).

(Author: Much could be said about this quote; he also is clearly linking the prophecy of Daniel to the text of Paul’s, agreeing with other eminent writers of his time that out of Rome would evolve ten kings, 3 of whom the antichrist would subdue. When the restrainer, Rome, was to be taken out of the way, and the horns of Daniel 7 arise, the antichrist would be revealed.)
 
B

brakelite

Guest
@Naomi25 ...to continue with the above....
Now I would present the testimony of Ambrose (died in 398): “After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.” (Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton,


Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)……


….and Chrysostom (died in 407): “When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”


Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389


[New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1905]…..


…and finally Jerome (died 420): “He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near.”


(Letter to Ageruchia, written about 409A. D. Letter 123, section 16; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, p. 236


Jerome’s testimony is interesting. He admits and agrees with other early church fathers of his era that Rome was the restrainer, and had been removed in his (Jerome’s) lifetime. Yet it had not yet been made apparent who the power was that could definitively be called the Antichrist. Why? Because from Jerome’s perspective, he could not see all the signs of the Antichrist’s coming, as they had yet to be revealed in history. The capital of the empire had been removed to Constantinople, and the Gothic barbarian kings* were already well entrenched in ongoing battles and wars to decide who would rule over the territories not long since vacated by Rome, but the three horns to be subdued were still in power. When they were subdued, it would then be known by whose power they were done away, and the identity of Antichrist would be revealed.
Paul has just told them that a great evil is being restrained.
A great evil restrained by a lesser evil. Yes. While pagan Rome with its persecutions was evil. the greater evil was the Papacy that used deception, as well as persecution.
And that in God's time, it will be released, and the Christ will slay him by the breath of his mouth at his coming
Indeed. But you lay too much stress on the antichrist being a literal single 'man', when there are quite appropriate grounds for it being a political/religio power...just as other symbolism throughout scripture so presented it.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I don't think it makes sense for the Restrainer to be evil, for if it were, what interest would it have in prolonging the coming of Antichrist?

Yeah I don't really see Pagan Rome fitting the bill here. In futurist terms, the MOS will harness and rule the equivalent of a modern day Roman empire, so it's not exactly 'removed' out of the way as it is a vehicle to further the agenda.

It does sound like you accept a Final singular MOS @Naomi25. I believe this is actually a tenet of Futurism ;)

:D I keep saying that there's more we agree about then they'd think...but they don't listen to me!! I wonder why that could be? :p
But yeah...I reckon there will be a final AC. A final world system of sorts...and there's always a dude at the top, isn't there? I actually believe in a future for Israel, a Rapture and a literal return too! I'm almost a literalist! The funny thing is, Amillennialist DO consider themselves literalists. If you take the first verse of Revelation literally, you sort of have to consider the book figurative. It tells you to. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: friend of
B

brakelite

Guest
@Naomi25
And now here is a very interesting perspective on those times from the renowned Catholic historian, Gibbons.
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire.

The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”

(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel and Paul. While attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of Paul and Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining. It was the papacy that arose after the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friends are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 6th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “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, showing himself that he is God.”

As @Waiting on him suggested, it cannot be the temple in heaven wherein the antichrist takes his throne...nor is there any evidence in scripture that a third literal temple is to be built in Jerusalem, at least not in context (some texts may be crafted out of the prophecies to seem to lead in that direction, but...)the only real temple wherein the Papacy was able to take the throne within any temple was the Christian church itself. The 'man of sin' is not Satan. Satan's baby so to speak, his spokesman and representative yes, but literally Satan himself, no.