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!

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I remember when I was being convicted that the Amillennial interpretation was the most biblically faithful....I struggled with this also. Because, sure...there's so much bad stuff in the world, right? How can we possibly think that Satan is bound? If he was locked away, surely things would be much better?
The problem with that, as I came to see, is that that's not exactly what Rev 20 says. We see that it is Satan, and him alone, that is bound, only in regards to 'deceiving the nations'.
Does this mean we are to assume his demons are also locked away from influencing people? That Satan himself cannot use his powers in any way? Well...it doesn't say that. It just says that he cannot deceive the nations. We know that Satan is the "father of lies", that he has been a lier from the very beginning. We knows that lies are the opposite of truth, and that the truth is who God is, what his Son did for us, and how people can be free: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Actually, Revelation 20:3 does state that while he is locked in the Abyss he will not be able to deceive the nations any longer. When we consider the entire purpose of his existence is dedicated to deceiving and bringing about the destruction of souls, it stands to reason that this verse indicates that all of his powers will be arrested at this time, not just his ability to "deceive" which can also be considered his primary means of conducting such warfare.

I don't think he's been sealed in the Abyss yet because he's the grand general of blasphemy and God's given him permission to continue in this way for a certain amount of time. He knows his time is short, God basically allows him to party it up now cuz he's going away forever. Satan is like the host/coordinator of a big demonic party. Hes the boss. I think if he were truly sealed away at this time it would be like putting him on a time-out right before the party really gets started. Pretty sure he's the only unclean entity with access to speaking with God, and so the entirely of the demonic army under him relies on his strategizing.

So...perhaps let me ask you this: since Jesus Christ came to earth on his mission to save a people of his own...his Church...has Satan, despite being the 'prince of the world', managed to wipe us out? And really consider this: considering that we are the most persecuted people group on the face of the planet; that even 'Christian' nations such as America, Australia, Britian etc, are now becoming openly hostile to us and rarely see people of faith in government...why hasn't Satan managed to pull of more "Hitler" type situations that have just once and for good gotten rid of us? They hate us enough to do it. It's because, as Jesus told his Disciples in Matt 12, Satan has been bound for a specific purpose: the gospel will go forth; Christ WILL build his church.

Well, the fact that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world is a rather Hitleresque achievement of evil. Bringing WWII into the discussion doesn't help your side of the argument either ;)

When we factor that our presence in governments across the world is rather modest and that we've thrived in spite of this, it lends credence to my side that the supernatural nature and position of the Restrainer is still intact and has not yet been moved "out of the way."
 

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
As to the growing hostility we see even in our own Countries...well, as per my OP...the question then becomes (to my mind), has Satan been released? Is he now free to unite the whole world against Christians? If there is no America to object to the attrocities of North Korea, Syria or Iran against Christians, would it stop? Would there be any left alive?
Which brings us to the verse where Christ says, "but for the sake of the elect, I will cut those days short".

I think he's still as active as ever. The whole world lies under the power of the evil one. If he were sealed at the time of the cross, I don't think John would write this verse the way he did 1 John 5:19

Isaiah 65 is tricky, for both those who see the Millennium now, and for those who see it yet future. You see, while it's true it says there will be death, it also clearly says "behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth". I think the question that must be asked is this: which is clearer and most likely: that "I make a new heavens and new earth" is symbolic for the Millennial time when he has not yet done that, or "the young man shall die a hundred years old" is a symbolic way of saying "aging will be a thing of the past". I tend to side with the latter, clearly. I just think that its a much easier reading of the text. In my mind you just can't wiggle pas

I hadn't thought of the aging thing holding metaphorical meaning, but I suppose that's fair, especially when the 1000 Year Reign itself can be interpreted as metaphorical in lieu of 2 Peter 3:8. The wicked will have shortened lifespans while the righteous lifespans increase perpetually, etc. I tend to think the creation of new heavens/earth will occur at the end of Revelation 21/22 though, and that it is distinct from Millenial Kingdom, but it very well might not be.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
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.
It is true many are here only to push their own agendas. And even those of us willing to converse still hold to doctrines of choice for very good reasons, do we not?
However, I apologise if I've made you feel like I've never taken your thoughts seriously. I attempt to consider most ideas if I can see a true biblical weight behind them.


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.
I don't at all disagree with this possible hypothesis. It's probably quite sound. We know that Peter referred to Rome as 'Babylon' for similar reason. Any person steeped in OT history would have picked up the reference to a city and society that opposed the people of God, but clearly by that time Babylon was gone, Rome had taken it's place.

However...I think my question still stands. Let's say that Rome WAS the restrainer. When we come to the verses that tell us that the restrainer lifts so that this final man of sin can come forth and be ultimately defeated by Christ at his return...how does that figure? Rome has been gone a long time. If the final Antichrist arose when Rome fell, he also would be dead and gone.
So...I guess what I'm saying is; I'm struggling to put the "historically accurate" pieces together here.

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
Thank you for providing this. It's been an interesting first stepping stone for me. I've been doing some 'Tertullian' reading today...most interesting. He was both a man to be admired, but also, as I mentioned to Phoneman777, one who was clearly uninspired (as are we all!). Some of his ideas wobble away from scriptural teachings. But, that doesn't mean all do, or what he has to say about the topic at hand is wrong.
Yes, he clearly identifies Rome as the Restrainer. However, he also identifies a 'final man of sin' as well.
"Tertullian, like Irenaeus, identifies the Antichrist with the Man of Sin and the Beast(56). On the one hand he speaks of many antichrists—as indeed John himself does—men who rebel against Christ at any time, and he specifically mentions Marcion and his followers as antichrists(57). Yet on the other hand he expects the specific Antichrist just before the resurrection, as a persecutor of the church(58)"
(56)Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 5, chap. 16, and On the Resurrection of the flesh, chap. 25. in ANF, vol. 3, pp. 463, 464, and 563 respectively..
(57) Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heresies, chap. 4, and Against Marcion, book 3, ,chap. 8, in ANF, vol. 3, pp. 245 and 327 respectively.
(58)Tertullian, On the Resurrection. chaps. 25. 27, and Scorpiace, chap. 12, and A Treatise on the Soul, chap. 50, in ANF, vol. 3. pp. 563, 565, and 646, and 227, 228 respectively

So, again, I'm wondering about basic timelines. How can Christ kill at his coming, a figure that is to be 'released' by an entity that ceased to be thousands of years ago?
I'm not saying you cannot answer this, I am asking you to....thanks.

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.)

Okay, so...to really be able to 'get into' this discussion, I'd need about a week to do some in-depth reading on these Church fathers.
But, in want of a comment right now, I'd have to say two things: while they do indeed see the fall of Rome as a pivitol event, I don't notice, as was claimed, that any of them are saying that this information...that Rome IS the Restrainer, was passed down from Paul. That they have special revelation on this particular thing.
Which still leads me to wonder. Rome was something of a marvel. Even in today's age, where we have nations such as America, almost nothing comes close to Rome. The road builders. 'All roads lead to Rome'. 'Pax Romana'. They changed the face of the globe...for good or ill, depending on which side you were on, I guess.
So...why wouldn't the prevailing thought be 'when Rome goes, that's it'?
It's essentially the same mistake the Disciples made when thinking the end of the Temple had to mean the end of the age. Surely such a momentus event HAD to signal the end of the age? The end of the temple and Jerusalem had to mean Christ's return and his establishment of the Kingdom.
For the people living under the Roman Empire, what else could be the Restrainer? What else, bar Caesar, would God use to divinly hold back something? For them, I suspect the notion was obvious. When Rome fell, distaster would rise with this man of sin.
I suspect that most Americans today would tell you that if America is dust, then the end of the world was nigh. They couldn't comprehend the idea that the strongest nation in the world could be bought low. No...

So...while I'm most certainly NOT dismissing your idea...I'll certainly read on when I have the time, and I promise to truly consider. I suppose I do wish you'd answer that question about timing. And yes, I do suppose that I'm not really seeing anything that really tells me these men see a biblical reason for Rome being the Restrainer. Not yet anyway. Thus far, I'm seeing opinion based on how things were for them then. That's something we do very much today as well, is it not?
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
@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.

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.


Mmm. And, please don't take any of these questions or doubt as automatic dismissals on my part. They are, and need to be, natural questions anyone should ask about such things.

While I can agree that Papal Rome has done many wrongs in it's time, I don't know that we can historically fit both into the places you assign them, can we? First, the Roman Catholic Church began under the auspieces of the Roman Empire, as Christianity began influencing even that domain...as we see in Constantine. The RCC did not arise out of the death of the Empire, like it was birthed after a restraint was lifted.
Also, do you truly see the RCC as a greater evil than some of the things the Roman Empire did or stood for? Peter rightly labeled Rome Babylon at one point. Can I ask what it is about the RCC that you see makes it more evil than Rome? More evil than some of the Empires and Nations that have come after it and the things they've done to Christians?

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.

I don't discount that it could be or is. But in my estimation, even if it IS something like the RCC, or a government or organisation...there is always a man at the top, is there not? The Pope, The President, The CEO. Wouldn't that then mean that the term or phrase and the position it fills is somewhat interchangeable?

I think personally, I land on it being a man, because in scripture its how we see Satan moving. He is the great impersonator. God does, Satan copies. We see the notion all throughout the book of Revelation. And so, when God sent his own, beloved Son into the world, to show love, compassion and set people free, I cannot think of a more...appropriate way for Satan to 'immitate' that, then to send 'Antichrist'...one who, like Christ, performs miracles, but leads people to death and destruction through lies, rather than truth.

But again...one man would struggle to rise, even with Satan behind him...without some sort of power base under him...so again, "Man" of sin, and "organisation of sin" sort of go hand in hand. But, that's just my opinion.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
@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.

Again...I'd want to see how, specifically, the RCC meets the criteria of the man of lawlessness. Are you talking about the RCC in general, its teachings and beliefs, or are you specifically talking about the office of the Pope and the people who take the chair?

It's just that, I'd say from scripture, that John tells us this:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. -1 John 2:22

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. -1 John 4:2–3


So...while I may disagree with a fair bit the RCC teaches, I can't deny that they do believe Christ is the Son of God, and that he came in the flesh.
Now...I don't like the position of the Pope...I don't think the Bible the power it gives. And I most certainly don't like the current Pontiff...I think there are many Catholics who don't like him either. And I could see a liar getting into a position like that and doing great harm. But...it doesn't make much sense to me that Satan's 'big' plan is to start an organisation that teaches a basic truth. Because, like it or not, plenty of people have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through the RCC. If the boss at the top (the Pope) was always Satan's yes man...that's a pretty bad business model, don't you think?
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Actually, Revelation 20:3 does state that while he is locked in the Abyss he will not be able to deceive the nations any longer. When we consider the entire purpose of his existence is dedicated to deceiving and bringing about the destruction of souls, it stands to reason that this verse indicates that all of his powers will be arrested at this time, not just his ability to "deceive" which can also be considered his primary means of conducting such warfare.
With all due respect...does it? Think about all the things we see the demonic doing in scripture...we see demon oppression/possession is big. These people were often mute and blind or unwell. Some were overly strong. In Acts we even see a girl who could tell the future because of a demon. 2 Thess 2 tells us that the Man of Lawlessness will come with the 'activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders'. In Rev 16:14 we are told that demons go about performing signs. In Rev 13:11 says that 'the beast' "performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth".

What's my point. It's this: lies are NOT Satan's only tool. And he has plenty of demons to do his bidding. We are only ever told a third of heaven went with him. How many is that? How many was in heaven to start with?

Anyway, I suppose what I'm saying is this...maybe I'm not right. Maybe I'm way off base. But...Revelation 20 doesn't state anything more than that Satan is bound against deceiving the Nations. I would urge caution against assuming that means anything more. Always, always, take it back to scripture to make a decision.

I don't think he's been sealed in the Abyss yet because he's the grand general of blasphemy and God's given him permission to continue in this way for a certain amount of time. He knows his time is short, God basically allows him to party it up now cuz he's going away forever. Satan is like the host/coordinator of a big demonic party. Hes the boss. I think if he were truly sealed away at this time it would be like putting him on a time-out right before the party really gets started. Pretty sure he's the only unclean entity with access to speaking with God, and so the entirely of the demonic army under him relies on his strategizing.
Except, there's obviously been limitations put upon this party, hasn't there? We already know that Jesus has "snuck into his house to plunder it" (Matt 12...I love that imagry by the way!). We also know, due to Eph 1:20 that Christ is seated upon a throne right now, above all powers, authorities and names. That includes Satan. Satan knows he got done at the cross.
Which begs a question, don't you think? If he's "prince of this world" at the moment, and has total free reign...why are we still here? Why isn't the whole Earth like North Korea, or Iran? Why have we just had several hundred amazing years of Western 'Christian' civilization that would seem to be 'in the face' of the 'Prince of this world'? Wouldn't you think he'd prefer us to be quivering, afraid and persecuted? Barely any left? Why?
Could it be because Satan is bound against preventing the gospel going forth? Christ DID say that he'd "build his Church and the gates of hell will not prevail". Hmm.

Of course...If I'm right, and we've had a time of the gospel going forth in freedom, while Satan has been bound, specifically, against that....then it also stands to reason that a time is coming...or is here...when he will be 'loosed'...from those bonds. And you're talking about him partying? Think about a starved lion watching plump chickens waddle by every day, suddenly let out. No wonder our religious freedom is under attack....

Well, the fact that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world is a rather Hitleresque achievement of evil. Bringing WWII into the discussion doesn't help your side of the argument either ;)
Mmm...actually, it's not really here nor there. You see...Christ told us that "in this world, you WILL have tribulation". Persecution for Christians is normal. Why? People. People hated Christ first, so it will hate us too. That's got nothing to do with Satan.
Of course, I don't doubt Satan is doing what he can within his limitations.
But...that brings me to my other point...yes, we've been persecuted, but...considering the odds stacked against us, we shouldn't still exists, should we?
Think about it, using our Hitler analogy. That was one Country, with one evil dictator and an evil army willing to commit attrocities. And they killed 6 million Jews. Of how many Jews in the world? How close did they come to committing complete genocide?
Now consider how many people, governements, leaders, ideologies, religions...I could go on....hate Christians. Worldwide. And I mean HATE. We know they do. They kill us, they ridicule us, lie about us, mock us, steal from us, take away our liberties. Why...why do you think we still exist in the numbers we do? Why do you think more Countries, leaders, religions, etc, haven't managed to do what Hitler did and rail together the support and rage in enough manner to actively begin to wipe us out, worldwide? Oh...some have tried. But none have suceeded.
If Satan was truly reigning here on this planet, free to exercise his full deceiving powers, I think what it looks like in Syria right now, is what it would look like world wide for Christians. I think that is what's coming.

When we factor that our presence in governments across the world is rather modest and that we've thrived in spite of this, it lends credence to my side that the supernatural nature and position of the Restrainer is still intact and has not yet been moved "out of the way."

Does that necessarily negate my theory that the 'restrainer' is also that which is 'binding' Satan as well? When the restrainer releases, Satan comes forth, as does his man of sin, and together they delge the world in anti-Christian lies and persecution.
 

Naomi25

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2016
3,199
1,801
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I think he's still as active as ever. The whole world lies under the power of the evil one. If he were sealed at the time of the cross, I don't think John would write this verse the way he did 1 John 5:19



I hadn't thought of the aging thing holding metaphorical meaning, but I suppose that's fair, especially when the 1000 Year Reign itself can be interpreted as metaphorical in lieu of 2 Peter 3:8. The wicked will have shortened lifespans while the righteous lifespans increase perpetually, etc. I tend to think the creation of new heavens/earth will occur at the end of Revelation 21/22 though, and that it is distinct from Millenial Kingdom, but it very well might not be.

It's funny, really, that Christians so often argue about the Millennium. What is it that they say "the Millennium...1000 years of peace Christians like to fight about!"
When it all comes down to it, I think one thing, but won't care less if I'm wrong, and I don't suppose anyone else will either. Bottom line: Jesus will be there...so in my book...everything will be A-Okay. :)
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Thanks for your replies @Naomi25 and for treating this topic as a basis for discussion, not argument and berating. First, I didn't mean to point to you personally as being the focus of my critique of members here as being too readily willing to dismiss phoneman's and my thoughts on this topic without fair consideration. I have always found you to be one of the exceptions on any discussion. While having your own current ideas, I have never noticed you being scathingly hostile to others ideas which may be contrary to your own without discussion and thought. Your questions have opened up a pandora's box of controversy, and the answers are not without the possibility of engendering much debate and a certain amount of vehement objection from some quarters. This I fully understand, having been in their position myself, but having since been convinced that the historicist hermeneutic offers the only real Biblical and historical support for those questions you raise.
The answers aren't simple either. Books have been written on the subject so please don't expect one line answers LOL. It's too late for me to start tonite...I need to get up for work early so am typing this brief reply before crashing for the night. I may have opportunity tomorrow to offer some full answers and which likely will lead to more questions and challenges, and that's okay. Have a good night.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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 truth is that the Bible doesn't say what Paul told the Thess., so the only evidence we have to go on is historic evidence. Josephus, who wasn't even an ECF, is many times referred to for support of Biblical positions - are you saying we should now disregard what he has to say, or do you think a Jew who rejected Jesus as Messiah is a more reliable source than the ECFs?
Yes, they knew (who the Restrainer was), but the text doesn't say outright.
"And now ye know what withholdeth..." That's about as outright as it gets.
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?
Post #23 - England's greatest prophecy teacher whose scholarship is unsurpassed, H. Grattan Guiness. Skip to point 5. Also, here are excerpts of ECFs writing which modern prophecy teachers totally censure as if they don't exist because they destroy modern accepted ideas about a future Antichrist...y'know, much like evolutionists hide the overwhelming supporting evidence for a young Earth Biblical creation for the same reason:

Tertulliun, 2nd - 3rd century:
"...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..."

(a statement detailing how the early church actually prayed for the preservation of the Roman Empire)
"There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock (rise of Antichrist) impending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chrysostom, 4th century:
"...'he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way', that is when the Roman Empire is taken ouf of the way, then he [Antichrist] shall come; and naturally, for as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will readily exalt himself; but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarch, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of men and of God."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Augustine, 4th - 5th century:
"...it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, 'Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,' refer to the Roman empire..."
------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus, 2nd century:
"John and Daniel have predicted the dissolution and desolation of the Roman Empire, which shall precede the end of the world and the eternal Kingdom of Christ...In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire (Roman Empire) which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel...But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await (those who wish to identify Antichrist in Irenaeus' day), in the first place, the division of the kingdom (Pagan Rome) into ten (barbarian tribes); THEN, IN THE NEXT PLACE...[let them learn] to acknowledge that he (Antichrist) who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. ..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lactantius Firminianous, 4th century:
"These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: ... 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...that detestable tyrant (Antichrist) should come who will trader-take so great a deed, and dig out that eye, by the destruction of which the world itself is about to fall.
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jerome, 4th - 5th century:
"... We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king (Antichrist) will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings, ..."
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?
Exactly! It is just makes plain sense that if the Restrainer was an agent of holiness, there's no way Paul would've kept silent about it and if the Restrainer is Pagan Rome, this is precisely why Paul refused to put that in writing.
You assume that the Church was NOT immensely encouraged.
I said no such thing. What I said was if the Restrainer was an agent of holiness, Paul missed a monumental opportunity to encourage them about that particular issue.
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.
Of course we know! :) If it was a good guy, there's no way Paul - as demonstrated by his never failing courage to declare the goodness and power of God before kings and commoners in Scripture - would have failed to declare it to the Thess. So, the Restrainer had to have been Pagan Rome as the unanimous testimony of the ECFs claims, and the reason Paul didn't write, "Hey guys, when the Roman Empire falls, the Man of Sin is going to arise" is because if the Romans got hold of that letter, they would saddle up and go forth to make Christians everywhere all dead.
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.
Naomi, do you not understand that much of what the early church taught was spread by word of mouth, that they were careful to be precise so as not to "add to or take away", and that what Paul told the early church about the Restrainer was spread abroad in the same careful, detailed manner as was the truths about Christ? The reason the ECFs interpreted Scripture the way they did is because that was the prevailing wisdom of the day. How else to you account for such unanimity?
And we know from scripture, 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.
Can you name one such false teaching that was unanimously held by every ECF? Of course you can't. And yet, you are suggesting that people who lived ALMOST TWO THOUSAND YEARS after the fact are somehow in a more favorable position to comment on what the early church believed about the identity of the Restrainer, when we have the testimony of those who lived way back close to the time when Paul was telling the early church who it was?
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'....
Ahhhhhhhhhh, and here your unconscious bias has betrayed you - "...not sure pagan Rome will be here at that time to restrain that final man" means you believe the Man of Sin Antichrist is yet to arise, the Restrainer must still be restraining its rise, and therefore you will go to any length necessary to reject any evidence no matter how compelling it is, even as compelling as what I've presented, in order to continue in your belief system. You don't even care that the whole idea of a future Antichrist was fabricated by the Jesuit Order as a means to deflect from itself the Protestant Reformation accusations that the papacy is the Antichrist - a truth to which the Bible and church history (like what the ECFs wrote about the Restrainer) attests to. The Jesuit Order beheaded millions for their faith and to this day considers death a just punishment for "heretics" but that's alright, the only existential threat to Christianity today is Islam, right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: brakelite

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
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.
"Love for God entails the rejection of false worship" as your sig says, Naomi,
but you can "believe" eternity means forever as long as you want to, ok with me
It's funny, really, that Christians so often argue about the Millennium. What is it that they say "the Millennium...1000 years of peace Christians like to fight about!"
When it all comes down to it, I think one thing, but won't care less if I'm wrong, and I don't suppose anyone else will either. Bottom line: Jesus will be there...so in my book...everything will be A-Okay. :)
Ah yes, tomorrow's just a day away, huh? Everything will be aok tomorrow, when Jesus is there,
who needs life more abundantly or to worry about thief in the night anyway, right?
Jesus will be here tomorrow! Yay!
lol, it's clown-talk

Wadr I'm pretty sure you already realize on some level how warped your doctrine is Naomi, but Death More Abundantly calls like a siren-song, huh? Way worse than any heroin i guess.
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
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.
ty
 

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If he's "prince of this world" at the moment, and has total free reign...why are we still here? Why isn't the whole Earth like North Korea, or Iran?

Well, he's not free to do everything he wants.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
We might do well to remember that the restrainer is not the main character in the narrative. He is merely the means by which the principal may be identified. Much the same way as John the Baptist was the forerunner and pointer to Christ, and as he decreased so Christ increased, so must the restrainer decrease before the Antichrist increases. It is the Antichrist... The man of sin that is the principal in the narrative. And this one passage of scripture is not the only one we needed to rely upon to identify Antichrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,466
2,500
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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'?

Satan isn't bound yet today (1 Pet.5:8). He isn't bound until the day of Christ's return, and that is the timing of the Rev.20:1-3 events.

Jesus didn't come the first time to establish His physical Kingdom yet. He came to die on the cross and thus defeat the devil, which sealed the judgement and sentence of the devil and his angels. But like Paul said, Jesus must first reign over all His enemies, and that is what His return is going to be about. That is when Satan will be bound for the thousand years of Rev.20, and only loosed one final time at the end of that period to test the nations that will have heard The Gospel during the thousand years.

Once again, Paul did not say Jesus will deliver up the Kingdom to The Father at His second coming. Paul said Jesus MUST reign first over all His enemies. The time He will deliver up the Kingdom will be when death, hell, and Satan are destroyed in the lake of fire at the end of the thousand years. The Rev.20 events are literal, not philosophical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: friend of

Earburner

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2019
6,467
1,539
113
74
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Naomi25 said:
I remember when I was being convicted that the Amillennial interpretation was the most biblically faithful....I struggled with this also. Because, sure...there's so much bad stuff in the world, right? How can we possibly think that Satan is bound? If he was locked away, surely things would be much better?
The problem with that, as I came to see, is that that's not exactly what Rev 20 says. We see that it is Satan, and him alone, that is bound, only in regards to 'deceiving the nations'.
Does this mean we are to assume his demons are also locked away from influencing people? That Satan himself cannot use his powers in any way? Well...it doesn't say that. It just says that he cannot deceive the nations. We know that Satan is the "father of lies", that he has been a lier from the very beginning. We knows that lies are the opposite of truth, and that the truth is who God is, what his Son did for us, and how people can be free: the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
.
Naomi, you are speaking truth, but you have not considered that after the symbolic one thousand years, being this Age of God's Grace, satan shall be loosed for a little season.
.
Know that he was released approx. 200 years ago!!
While man has spent the last 6000+/- years riding in horse drawn buggies etc., ONLY RECENTLY has the world been buried in technological marvels and wonders of genius designs of creation for the benefit of man, but all at a cost to all other animal life.
This earth (satan's abyss and the place of his eternal death), is HIS ONLY HOME. In the end he and the armies of the Beast will ultimately square off with Christ and the Saints upon His return.
.
Satan has been loosed!! And the Chaos that we all have been witnessing in the world in the last 200 years, is his rage and fury, by him knowing that he has not much time left.
.
The Age of God's Grace shall end when these two scriptures have been fulfilled: Luke 18:8; 2 Thes. 2:3.
.
In your recent confusion over the Amillennial view,
I remind you Lot's wife: "Do NOT look back" .
 

Earburner

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2019
6,467
1,539
113
74
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What event did this coincide with? Do you have anything to support this claim?
Use your brain!
The inventions in electrical power, nuclear power, planes, trains and automobiles, and the speed of light communications.
Since the day of those inventions in the 1800s, man has advanced into robotics and AI intelligence within only 200 years.
Question: who is the real genius behind it all, and WHY?
Ans. Rev. 19[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
 

Earburner

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2019
6,467
1,539
113
74
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Satan isn't bound yet today (1 Pet.5:8). He isn't bound until the day of Christ's return, and that is the timing of the Rev.20:1-3 events.

Jesus didn't come the first time to establish His physical Kingdom yet. He came to die on the cross and thus defeat the devil, which sealed the judgement and sentence of the devil and his angels. But like Paul said, Jesus must first reign over all His enemies, and that is what His return is going to be about. That is when Satan will be bound for the thousand years of Rev.20, and only loosed one final time at the end of that period to test the nations that will have heard The Gospel during the thousand years.

Once again, Paul did not say Jesus will deliver up the Kingdom to The Father at His second coming. Paul said Jesus MUST reign first over all His enemies. The time He will deliver up the Kingdom will be when death, hell, and Satan are destroyed in the lake of fire at the end of the thousand years. The Rev.20 events are literal, not philosophical.
Here is a challenge for you concerning "a thousand years". Please describe the following IN LITERAL TERMS:
2 Peter 3[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
 

friend of

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2018
1,738
1,365
113
33
B.C.
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
2 Peter 3[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This isn't necessarily connected to the 1000 year reign in Revelation. It's just talking about how different God's interaction with time is than our own.