A Question About The Restrainer

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The historical record proves that the Jews repented of these idolatrous practices and never again returned to them and we really should stop trying to indict them of such things for the sake of establishing non-extent proof that in 1948 God suspended His very own established condition at the dedication of the Temple Solomon built by which He would gather them after He'd scattered them: repentance.

1. So what if they repent of idolatry? There is plenty of unrepented sin in Israel today; witness their own gay liberation agenda.

2. Who are the "we" whom are trying to indict them? If it's you, stop it, but it's certainly not me.

3. Who is saying that God suspended His very own conditions? Israel was set up again as a nation. This has a long history going back to the colonial powers and their war on the Ottoman Empire.

4. I think you're confusing the ingathering of Jews in modern-day Israel with the promise God has for the Millennial ingathering.

So you have a lot going on in this sentence and I will attack your premises.

I have stated historical fact that the Jesuits were responsible for Futurism and Preterism.

An historical fact? Hardly. And you cite the Jesuits as founding two wildly conflicting and contradictory eschatologies. That should be evidence enough that your statement can't hold water.

Those who want to criticize futurism - which is a Pre-Millennial outlook shared by many today - do so without challenging the text such advocates cite for their eschatology. Instead, they attack some strawmen saying because they were or are "bad" that somehow the whole message is "bad." This is laughable logically, but even more so when those who hold onto a different eschatology than amillennialism do so entirely on their own study and quite apart from the bogeymen's heels they're supposed to be following!

 

[Phoneman777]

I am the light of the world for Jesus and the salt of the earth for Jesus. So are we all who have Jesus in our hearts. When we let our lights shine we hold back the darkness. When God takes us home the darkness will not be restrained anymore.

Amen, we are the light of the world, as Paul was in his day, and is why it makes no sense for Paul to have held back from the world the "light" of the truth that the Holy Spirit in His church is Restraining the rise of Antichrist. Of course, if we believe what the Early Church Fathers say Paul told the early church about the Roman Empire being the Restrainer, then it makes perfect sense why he was so secretive. If Paul thought the Restrainer was the Holy Spirit in His church, he would have shouted that "light" from the rooftops, being the "lightbearer" that he was.

1. So what if they repent of idolatry? There is plenty of unrepented sin in Israel today; witness their own gay liberation agenda.

2. Who are the "we" whom are trying to indict them? If it's you, stop it, but it's certainly not me.

3. Who is saying that God suspended His very own conditions? Israel was set up again as a nation. This has a long history going back to the colonial powers and their war on the Ottoman Empire.

4. I think you're confusing the ingathering of Jews in modern-day Israel with the promise God has for the Millennial ingathering.

So you have a lot going on in this sentence and I will attack your premises.


An historical fact? Hardly. And you cite the Jesuits as founding two wildly conflicting and contradictory eschatologies. That should be evidence enough that your statement can't hold water.

Those who want to criticize futurism - which is a Pre-Millennial outlook shared by many today - do so without challenging the text such advocates cite for their eschatology. Instead, they attack some strawmen saying because they were or are "bad" that somehow the whole message is "bad." This is laughable logically, but even more so when those who hold onto a different eschatology than amillennialism do so entirely on their own study and quite apart from the bogeymen's heels they're supposed to be following!

1. "So what?" You are certainly flippant regarding what God held as a solemn requirement for the gathering of Israel from their scattering in judgment. The Jewish nation has not repented of that which brought the judgment of God against them: rejecting Jesus. Therefore, God had nothing to do with their gathering in 1948.

2. Those who accuse the gathered Jewish nation of returning to idolatry after they repented of it during the time they were scattered to Babylon are the ones who falsely indict the the Jewish nation, for the captivity not only cured them of it, but when they returned, they went so far as to enact countless rigorous, burdensome laws in an attempt to PREVENT the nation from falling back into idolatry and suffering another scattering from the land.

3. Anyone who suggest that God had a hand with their return in 1948 is claiming that He suspended His condition that Israel would have to meet before they would be gathered back to the land if by their rebellion they would find themselves scattered as a judgment of God against them. Again, the nation of Israel despises the idea of Jesus as the promised Messiah.

4. It is you who are confused into thinking that God doesn't mean what He says. He inspired Solomon to pray that if Israel would repent after being scattered, they would be forgiven and gathered. There is no millennial promise in Scripture; it is a myth in order to establish Jesuit Futurism/Dispensationalism as a "legitimate" eschatological alternative to the truth of Historicism, which rejected both Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism for over 300 years before Protestants began drinking the Jesuit Koolaid and forgot why the Reformers believed what they did.

5. Any Christian who has studied church history from a Protestant perspective knows that Jesuit Luiz Alcazar fathered Preterism and Jesuit Francisco Ribera fathered Jesuit Futurism, and only agenda-driven revisionist church historians, which appear to be those upon which you rely on for your research, will deny this.

There are no "straw man" arguments necessary to overthrow the lunacy of Jesuit Futurism - only common sense is needed for that:

> Claims that a time prophecy that God said would last only 490 years but now somehow requires and additional 2,000+ years, as if He didn't know about the infamous "clock stoppage" that would take place -

> Speculation that ISIS or some other modern day group might be what the Bible identifies as the "end time persecutor of the saints" when the Roman Catholic Papacy is thought to have beheaded, burned alive, buried alive, etc., etc., etc., upwards of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION saints -

> Claims that the "son of perdition" is one man who will arise elsewhere and come into the church while the "son of perdition" - Judas - arose WITHIN the church and that John the Revelator says that Antichrists arise from within and "go out from us" -

> Claims that the Bible has absolutely nothing to say to the church prophetically from end of the first century until the time that the "last seven years of Tribulation" starts, as if to suggest God was blind to what would happen during that time or unable to share it with us -

If is for reasons like this and many, many others that the Protestant Reformers rejected these Jesuit ideas to which so many "enlightened" Protestants are so hopelessly devoted today.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

God had nothing to do with their gathering in 1948.

God has everything to do with the initiation of the State of Israel in 1948. He sets Kings and Kingdoms up and He takes them down. He put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House to lead this nation down the road to its destruction.

2. Those who accuse the gathered Jewish nation of returning to idolatry after they repented of it during the time they were scattered to Babylon are the ones who falsely indict the the Jewish nation, for the captivity not only cured them of it, but when they returned, they went so far as to enact countless rigorous, burdensome laws in an attempt to PREVENT the nation from falling back into idolatry and suffering another scattering from the land.

Nonsense. The captivity did not forever "cure" the Jewish nation of its sin. They became Hellenized under the Greeks and they largely capitulated to the Romans for much of their rule too. Furthermore, Jesus condemned the Jews for piling rule upon rule. Today, the Jews in Israel are still a mixed bag. Are those "gay" Jews following the Law? No! Your whole premise for your argument is skewed and erroneous.

3. Anyone who suggest that God had a hand with their return in 1948 is claiming that He suspended His condition that Israel would have to meet before they would be gathered back to the land if by their rebellion they would find themselves scattered as a judgment of God against them. Again, the nation of Israel despises the idea of Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Nonsense again. I did not say God suspended His Prophecy for what will happen in the Millennium.

The Temple is a necessary component of end-time prophecy. It hasn't been built YET. It will be in the one 'seven' which still hasn't started.

In order for there to be a Temple, there has to be a Jewish influence, a State, in Israel, because by Law, the Temple can only be built on one spot - Israel warred against itself when some tribes sought to perform the required sacraments to God at a place other then on the Temple Mount.

The fact that Jews today largely do not accept Jesus as the Messiah goes against Millennial prophecy which indicates they will have a complete change of heart. This happens only after the woes they experience in the one 'seven' as the Remnant is shepherded through by God and finally have their appointed time before the Lord realized where they accept the Messiah King as the same Servant Messiah they rejected.

4. It is you who are confused into thinking that God doesn't mean what He says. He inspired Solomon to pray that if Israel would repent after being scattered, they would be forgiven and gathered. There is no millennial promise in Scripture; it is a myth in order to establish Jesuit Futurism/Dispensationalism as a "legitimate" eschatological alternative to the truth of Historicism, which rejected both Jesuit Futurism and Jesuit Preterism for over 300 years before Protestants began drinking the Jesuit Koolaid and forgot why the Reformers believed what they did.

Now I think you're confused because I think nothing like what you say I think.

And there is no Millennium promise in Scripture? Hahaha. Your bias and animus is showing again.

5. Any Christian who has studied church history from a Protestant perspective knows that Jesuit Luiz Alcazar fathered Preterism and Jesuit Francisco Ribera fathered Jesuit Futurism, and only agenda-driven revisionist church historians, which appear to be those upon which you rely on for your research, will deny this.

I deny that you have stated the facts correctly. In fact, I think you're quite agenda-driven on your own behalf, tilting at windmills of your own fantasy on your crusade for all thing eschatologically aligned with your mindset, which itself is a mixed up with Preterism if you want to say the one 'seven' is already past.

Hosea 6:2 - there are two days when Israel is ignored, and one day when it is healed of its wounds, raised up, and lives with the Lord.

1 " Come, let us return to the Lord.
For He has torn us, but He will heal us;
He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.
2 "He will revive us after two days;
He will raise us up on the third day,
That we may live before Him.

That is the Church Age, the growing season of the Elect, and the Millennium.

 

[Phoneman777]

God has everything to do with the initiation of the State of Israel in 1948. He sets Kings and Kingdoms up and He takes them down. He put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House to lead this nation down the road to its destruction.


Nonsense. The captivity did not forever "cure" the Jewish nation of its sin. They became Hellenized under the Greeks and they largely capitulated to the Romans for much of their rule too. Furthermore, Jesus condemned the Jews for piling rule upon rule. Today, the Jews in Israel are still a mixed bag. Are those "gay" Jews following the Law? No! Your whole premise for your argument is skewed and erroneous.


Nonsense again. I did not say God suspended His Prophecy for what will happen in the Millennium.

The Temple is a necessary component of end-time prophecy. It hasn't been built YET. It will be in the one 'seven' which still hasn't started.

In order for there to be a Temple, there has to be a Jewish influence, a State, in Israel, because by Law, the Temple can only be built on one spot - Israel warred against itself when some tribes sought to perform the required sacraments to God at a place other then on the Temple Mount.

The fact that Jews today largely do not accept Jesus as the Messiah goes against Millennial prophecy which indicates they will have a complete change of heart. This happens only after the woes they experience in the one 'seven' as the Remnant is shepherded through by God and finally have their appointed time before the Lord realized where they accept the Messiah King as the same Servant Messiah they rejected.


Now I think you're confused because I think nothing like what you say I think.

And there is no Millennium promise in Scripture? Hahaha. Your bias and animus is showing again.


I deny that you have stated the facts correctly. In fact, I think you're quite agenda-driven on your own behalf, tilting at windmills of your own fantasy on your crusade for all thing eschatologically aligned with your mindset, which itself is a mixed up with Preterism if you want to say the one 'seven' is already past.

Hosea 6:2 - there are two days when Israel is ignored, and one day when it is healed of its wounds, raised up, and lives with the Lord.

1 " Come, let us return to the Lord.
For He has torn us, but He will heal us;
He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.
2 "He will revive us after two days;
He will raise us up on the third day,
That we may live before Him.

That is the Church Age, the growing season of the Elect, and the Millennium.

1. I choose to believe God when He says through Solomon that He'll return them to the land if they turn to Him "with their whole heart and with their whole soul". Perhaps you missed Parliament member Ben Ari tearing up the New Testament which tells how the Messiah had finally come to them?

2. Brother, do you honestly expect people to believe that in Jesus' day, the Jews had once again become steeped in idolatrous worship of false gods when:

• they actively struggled to obey man-made laws heaped upon them by the Jewish leaders as a measure to prevent idolatry from once again taking hold on their nation?
• Jesus' rebukes against them had nothing to do with practicing idolatry, but for trusting in their God-ordained rituals and lineage for salvation?
• Paul had to clarify that eating food sacrificed to idols was OK so long as doing so was not a stumbling block to others?
• there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to even remotely suggest that the Jews had returned to the idolatrous worship?

3. There is hardly anything more ludicrous than for people to suggest that a rebuilt Jewish temple - where the sacrifices offered there would be an official "middle finger" in the face of Jesus - would EVER be called the "Temple of God". The temple Paul speaks of is the church (Grl "Naos"), and modern day Jews who are of their "father the devil" would only succeed in erecting a temple dedicated to him.

4. The "Millennial prophecy" has nothing to do with Israel. The only life down here during that time will be Satan and his demons awaiting their post-Millennial destruction along with the the wicked who will be resurrected at the close of the Millennium as well, but that's another topic for another thread.

5. Let me be clear: Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism are not valid interpretations b/c neither stands up to the test of Scripture, and your hopeless devotion to Futurism will leave you sadly disappointed and possibly lost. Please consider Historicism and why it was the dominant interpretation of eschatology for over THREE CENTURIES before Protestants began taking stupid pills and embracing Jesuit theology.

 

[StanJ]

Most Christians conclude that the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2 is the "Holy Spirit filled church" which is preventing the rise of Antichrist and after the church is "taken out of the way" in the rapture, the Antichrist will then be free to arise and wreak havoc on the earth during the "last seven years of tribulation". Sounds legit, right? Wrong.

If the "Holy Spirit filled church" is the Restrainer, then why doesn't Paul just come out and say it?

He'd already told the Thessalonians who the Restrainer was in his previous visit (2 Thessalonians 2:5-6 KJV) so for what purpose does he choose to remain so secretive about the issue in this subsequent letter to them?

• Certainly not because he didn't want them to know, because he'd already told them.

• And, certainly not because he didn't what this idea spread abroad to the rest of the church because Paul's entire life was dedicated to the spread of all things pertaining to the Gospel, including words of comfort and encouragement to the suffering, persecuted saints that they remain steadfast in the faith through the knowledge that God was still on the throne and was even then yet restraining the rise of of Antichrist by means of His powerful right hand.

In other words, there's simply no reason whatsoever for Paul to not open broadcast the proclamation that the Holy Spirit filled church was the Restrainer, and his decision to not do so makes absolutely no sense.

However, if the Restrainer was exactly what every church father, and the Protestant Reformers who came much later, claims Paul identified it to be - the Roman Empire - then it makes absolute PERFECT sense for him to keep silent about the Restrainer's identity. Such a letter - in which Paul claimed that "the Roman Empire was restraining the rise of Antichrist but when this Empire would be taken out of the way, then the Antichrist would arise" - would spell disaster to the fledgling Christian church should it fall into the wrong hands, seeing that rulers lived under constant threat of intrigue and insurrection from all sides and anyone who spoke about the fall of an empire would dare not speak about such a thing above their breath, let alone pen it in a letter.

Of course, the implication of accepting the Roman Empire as the Restrainer demands that we look for the immediate rise of Antichrist sometime around the middle of the 6th century A.D. and the abandonment of popular ideas about the "rapture", "seven years of tribulation", etc., etc., etc., which is too much for most Christians, so these will continue to promote the idea that the Holy Spirit filled church is the Restrainer, though Scripture, history, and common sense say otherwise. Good thing the Holy Spirit excels at slicing through our preconceived notions in order to bring the sincere searcher of His truth to a knowledge of the same.

Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Phoneman777]

Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit.

If Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit, he would have proudly and triumphantly declared to the Thessalonians (and the church everywhere) His victorious power over the Antichrist's struggle to rise up.

 

[StanJ]

If Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit, he would have proudly and triumphantly declared to the Thessalonians (and the church everywhere) His victorious power over the Antichrist's struggle to rise up.

Paul was teaching, and this was not the first time he had taught the Thessalonians about the end times and the man of lawlessness. I'm not sure where you got this word 'restrainer', but it's not in the KJV, it's in the ESV. The KJV uses 'withholdeth'. In any event, the ONLY person that can withhold or restrain or prevent evil from utterly destroying our world IS the Holy Spirit. That is why He was sent.

I was quickly able to find the following articles online FYI;

http://www.scionofzion.com/holy_spirit.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/restrainer.html

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

If Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit, he would have proudly and triumphantly declared to the Thessalonians (and the church everywhere) His victorious power over the Antichrist's struggle to rise up.

As if a contest between God and a man were even a contest at all. How proud is an expert trumping a novice?

The fact is that Paul told them who the restrainer was, and it is a fact today that that information has been lost: we don't know what Paul taught them whom is it.

We do know that God is restraining the anti-Christ until the time is right; many people have wanted to be that man in history, and we have enough politicians today that would gladly step into those shoes for the sake of their own egos. Barack Hussein Obama for one, but he's not the anti-Christ; he just wants to be all-powerful and have people forced to worship him.

 

[Phoneman777]

As if a contest between God and a man were even a contest at all. How proud is an expert trumping a novice?

The fact is that Paul told them who the restrainer was, and it is a fact today that that information has been lost: we don't know what Paul taught them whom is it.

We do know that God is restraining the anti-Christ until the time is right; many people have wanted to be that man in history, and we have enough politicians today that would gladly step into those shoes for the sake of their own egos. Barack Hussein Obama for one, but he's not the anti-Christ; he just wants to be all-powerful and have people forced to worship him.

The title of this thread is “A Question About The Restrainer”. Taken together, your responses are one collective failure to answer the question.

I have argued that Paul identified the Restrainer as the Roman Empire, which prevented the rise of the Papal Antichrist until the Papacy arose on the heels of fallen Rome, based on the unanimous testimony of the Early Church Fathers who claimed that Paul told the Thessalonians it was the Roman Empire – unanimity which could only have resulted from one consistent unanimous interpretation tracing all the way back to Paul's day – and that he chose not to reveal this in his subsequent letter b/c to speak of the fall of Rome would spell disaster for the fledgling church, should that letter fall into the hands of the Roman authorities.

You, and other hopelessly devoted Jesuit Futurists deny this and insist that the Restrainer is the “Holy Spirit”. Therefore, I ask the question once again:

Why would a man so fully dedicated to proclaiming from the highest mountaintops to the lowest valleys the power of the Holy Spirit suddenly choose on this singular occasion to keep silent about the “Holy Spirit filled church Restrainer” when Paul with unspeakable joy would do nothing but make the thunderous proclamation that even the mightiest of all the Holy Spirit's enemies – the Antichrist – is powerless to escape His powerful restraining right hand?

Paul was teaching, and this was not the first time he had taught the Thessalonians about the end times and the man of lawlessness. I'm not sure where you got this word 'restrainer', but it's not in the KJV, it's in the ESV. The KJV uses 'withholdeth'. In any event, the ONLY person that can withhold or restrain or prevent evil from utterly destroying our world IS the Holy Spirit. That is why He was sent.

I was quickly able to find the following articles online FYI;

http://www.scionofzion.com/holy_spirit.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/restrainer.html

The title of this thread is “A Question About The Restrainer”. Taken together, your responses are one collective failure to answer the question.

I have argued that the reason why Paul didn't reveal by letter the identity of the Restrainer was due to the fact that he identified it as the Roman Empire to the Thessalonians and the early church at large, as evidenced by the unanimous testimony of the Early Church Fathers – unanimity which could only have resulted from one consistent unanimous interpretation tracing all the way back to Paul's day – and that to speak of the fall of Rome by letter would spell disaster for the fledgling church, should that letter fall into the hands of the Roman authorities.

Those who are hopelessly devoted Jesuit Futurists deny this and insist that the Restrainer is the “Holy Spirit”. Therefore, I ask the question once again:

Why would a man so fully dedicated to proclaiming from the highest mountaintops to the lowest valleys the power of the Holy Spirit suddenly choose on this singular occasion to keep silent about the “Holy Spirit filled church Restrainer” when Paul with unspeakable joy would do nothing but make the thunderous proclamation that even the mightiest of all the Holy Spirit's enemies – the Antichrist – is powerless to escape His powerful restraining right hand?

 

[StanJ]

I supplied two links that clearly answer the OP. Your insistence on framing the issue in your own words doesn't change the issue. The Holy Spirit IS the subject of 2 Thessalonians 2, anf therefore is the restrainer/withholder of lawlessness on earth.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I have argued that Paul identified the Restrainer as the Roman Empire, which prevented the rise of the Papal Antichrist until the Papacy arose on the heels of fallen Rome, based on the unanimous testimony of the Early Church Fathers who claimed that Paul told the Thessalonians it was the Roman Empire – unanimity which could only have resulted from one consistent unanimous interpretation tracing all the way back to Paul's day – and that he chose not to reveal this in his subsequent letter b/c to speak of the fall of Rome would spell disaster for the fledgling church, should that letter fall into the hands of the Roman authorities.

And I still say you're all wrong. Your reasoning is specious and circular. Bring out your unanimous testifiers and let's see their evidence. You saying it means nothing.

The Roman Empire does not restrain its own ruler.

 

[Phoneman777]

I supplied two links that clearly answer the OP. Your insistence on framing the issue in your own words doesn't change the issue. The Holy Spirit IS the subject of 2 Thessalonians 2, anf therefore is the restrainer/withholder of lawlessness on earth.

Brother, the reason why you post links is because you are trying to give the appearance of an answer when you don't have one. Neither link addresses the question of Paul's inexplicable silence when he should have been anything but if your position is correct.

And I still say you're all wrong. Your reasoning is specious and circular. Bring out your unanimous testifiers and let's see their evidence. You saying it means nothing.

The Roman Empire does not restrain its own ruler.

Brother, please open your eyes and understand why you have no answer to the question: there just simply isn't any reason for Paul to have concealed the identity of the Restrainer if he meant to teach that it was the Holy Spirit.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Dude, if you open your mind, you will know that you don't have all the answers, that Paul had identified who it was, and that this information has been lost.

It could be the Holy Spirit, or it could be the Lord at work, or it could be some other entity sent by God to do His Work.

But it is not the Roman Empire past, present or future.

And until you supply some credible first century source that was in Thessalonia and who can attest with witness that Paul taught the restrainer was xyz - give it a break.

 

[StanJ]

Brother, the reason why you post links is because you are trying to give the appearance of an answer when you don't have one. Neither link addresses the question of Paul's inexplicable silence when he should have been anything but if your position is correct.

I post links because I can't be bothered or are too lazy to formulate a post when there are many explanations already in writing and it saves space for this site.
It only seems inexplicable to you Phoneman, not to most of us on this forum. You seem to think Paul got extremely excited all the time about the Holy Spirit. Maybe you should read Acts 19 for one example of how simple and straightforward it was for him. Your unreasonable expectations of Paul's apparent lack of emotional response doesn't mean a thing except maybe you rely to much on emotion and not enough on properly exegeting scripture.
Did you even read the links I provided?

 

[Phoneman777]

Dude, if you open your mind, you will know that you don't have all the answers, that Paul had identified who it was, and that this information has been lost.

It could be the Holy Spirit, or it could be the Lord at work, or it could be some other entity sent by God to do His Work.

But it is not the Roman Empire past, present or future.

And until you supply some credible first century source that was in Thessalonia and who can attest with witness that Paul taught the restrainer was xyz - give it a break.

Brother, please forgive me, but do you even read anything other than Jesuit ideas and your own rhetoric? Did I ever once question whether Paul revealed the Restrainer's identity? No, I have repeatedly acknowledged that Paul did just that as evidenced by 2 Thessalonians 2:5-6 KJV. The question I am asking, in order to get you to pull your head out of the Jesuit "dunghill of decretals" (words of Martin Luther) and THINK is this:

If Paul believed that the Restrainer who had a firmly planted foot on the neck of Antichrist was the Holy Spirit, then WHY did he not openly and triumphantly proclaim this in his letter to the Thessalonians for the benefit of both them and all Christians throughout history, seeing that there is absolutely, positively, most assuredly NO REASON FOR HIM TO NOT DO SO?

I have the testimony of the Early Church Fathers who claimed that the fathers of Paul's day understood him to identify the Restrainer as Pagan Rome which prevented the rise of Antichrist as long as it stood, while you cannot produce even one ECF testimony which speaks of the Holy Spirit as such. Yet, you choose to reject this testimony while asking me to "give it a break" while you tirelessly promote the ideas of men who exalt the Pope as "Jesus Christ hidden under veil of flesh" and their ideas of a Holy Spirit Restrainer (or some other instrument of holiness) that will unleash Antichrist when the church is "taken out of the way" just before the end? What hypocrisy. Here's your opportunity for enlightenment via point # 5 of the link:

https://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/early-church-fathers-were-historicist-h-grattan-guinness/

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Are you Nicklas Arthur or do you just mouth everything he says?

 

[Phoneman777]

Are you Nicklas Arthur or do you just mouth everything he says?

Is he one of your Jesuit friends? If so, please forward this link which shows that the early church believed Paul identified Pagan Rome as the Restrainer which demands that the Antichrist has already arisen in the 6th century, and that his delusions of an end time removal of a Restrainer and rise of Antichrist are still a pathetic diversionary tactic to deceive Protestants.

https://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/early-church-fathers-were-historicist-h-grattan-guinness/

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Your "link" proves nothing. And since you're mouthing the words of someone you suspect to be one of my Jesuit friends, you must be a Jesuit yourself.

 

[Phoneman777]

Your "link" proves nothing. And since you're mouthing the words of someone you suspect to be one of my Jesuit friends, you must be a Jesuit yourself.

Brother, how can I be a Jesuit when I oppose your hopeless devotion to Jesuit doctrine which prevents you from acknowledging even in the least the remarkably astounding unanimity of the Early Church Father's belief that the Restrainer was Pagan Rome, while you offer absolutely nothing to undermine this historic evidence and repeatedly evade the question of why Paul didn't didn't triumphantly proclaim your idea that the Restrainer is the "Holy Spirit/Instrument of Holiness" which was then restraining the rise of Antichrist? Images of pigeons and chessboards come to mind.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

You post Nicklas Arthur's website and everything you spout is right out of his mouth.

You then, in complete ignorance of what you posted, say Nicklas Arthur is one of my Jesuit friends.

Yet, you mouth everything from someone you accuse to be a Jesuit.

So are you a Jesuit yourself? You sure sound like it!

And have you ever taken a course in writing? It would help with your horrid sentence structure. Maybe you're better off mouthing someone else's words: you really can't express a cogent thought independently.