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?
I think the key word in all this would be "support". We can use these things to 'support' biblical texts...but if the bible is silent on a particular issue, we must not pick something up from history and declare it to be biblically sound.
It's a pretty easy distinction...the bible was inspired. Therefore everything in it is to be trusted. Everything else was written by men. As we have daily proof in our media and social media...men lie...for a multitude of reasons. Even Christian men who mean the best and have the best intentions, can interpret things differently. This board is another example of how many different interpretations there can be. All would claim a love of Christ and of God's word. But their reading and understanding of it?? And so even just saying that ECF's had written something....interesting..yes. Weighty? Yes. Inspired? No.
"And now ye know what withholdeth..." That's about as outright as it gets.
Not sure of your point. MY point was that DESPITE them knowing, it is still not written in scripture.
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:
Okay. So...I don't say that it is NOT very interesting that all these men view the Roman Empire in this light. However, there are certain questions that I feel must be asked, as there seems to be certain dots that are not connecting;
First...while they all seem to think it 'obvious' that the Roman Empire be the 'restraining' force, not one of them actually states outright that this idea has been passed down through the Church as a teaching from Paul.
Secondly, when reading about Tertullian's beliefs, we can see that he believes that 2 Thess 2 is also talking about a final Antichrist that Christ himself will defeat at his coming. This becomes a little problematic if we are to understand this happens 'when the Roman Empire falls'. The same problem comes when we read on the page you linked to about Chrysostom. He says, on his commentary on 2 Thess 2, that "as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans, so will this be by antichrist’, and he by Christ.”
He clearly sees that the events come one after the other as domino events. Again, this raises questions. The sort that can perhaps be answered by this: one reaccuring theme seems to pop up again and again when we read the 'big' writers of Churchdom. A number of them seemed to believe they were living within the terminal generation. It's quite fascinating, really, when you read about it. From the expectation within scripture that Paul gives that he himself could be present when Christ returns, to Martin Luther, to now...not all of them could (and obviously were not) right. And yet...that biblical expectation seems to prime us....
So....I suppose my tendandcy is to come down on this side: these men you have quoted have other doctrinal issues that many of us disagree with; clearly they are not infalible in all regards. They don't seem to say outright this was an Apostolic teaching. They seem to mistakenly assume that the Roman Empire MUST be the restrainer, because who else could it be and as soon as it's gone the FINAL AC will emerge for Christ to slay at his return (which clearly didn't happen).
Now...sure...I'm interested in what you have to say in regards to the question of...how does the timeline issue add up...how can it be they these men can insist that the RE can be the restrainer IF when it falls the FINAL AC is to emerge (as per 2 Thess 2), which we know to be an eschatological event as Christ slays this person AT his return.
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.
Well...I'm afraid that does't make much sense to me! Paul could have any number of reasons for not stating outright, either way. And, had he wanted to refer to to Rome but not outrightly, he could still have done it in many different ways as well. He could have refered to it as the 'current earthly power', or, as Peter did, Babylon.
Pretty much...you're assuming. You're assuming WHY Paul left it out, and doing so because you want it to fit your theory. I don't blame you, as we all tend to. But the passage doesn't mention anything regarding Rome. It mentions the fact that when this restrainer is remover the AC will arise who Christ will kill with the breath of his mouth. Now...while I admit there are possible paths around it, it seems rather evident that the clearest reading of that is that it is speaking of a time just before Christ's return.
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.
Well...
I suppose that depends on how you look at it! As you see it as NOT an agent of holiness, then no...I suppose you are saying Paul didn't miss the opportunity.
But...from my point of view...the one where you are kind of making a huge assumption...then, well...yes...you are also sort of assuming that the Church was not encouraged!!