A Question About The Restrainer

[StanJ]

Marcus, it's a lost cause to "cast pearls before swine" as the scripture tells us. He will not listen nor do I think he can.

 

[Phoneman777]

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.

Brother, I've not accused you or anyone else of being a Jesuit, but simply inquired if it were so. However, I retract the question, seeing that Jesuits are generally highly intelligent, while you cannot discern the difference between an accusation and an inquiry.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

And you don't know whose website to which you linked whose words you parrot... Good day.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

The bonehead idea that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit is born of the heresy of the rapture.(John 17:15)

The latter phoney doctrine was cooked up in the mid-nineteenth century by John Nelson Darby and popularized in print by Cyrus Scofield in his reference Bible. Google it if you really seek the truth. You won't lose your salvation if you lose this lie. That's the truth about the rapture.

Apart from being anti-Christian in nature (Darby was the consort of witches), the rapture has significant gaps in logic (i.e.: what happens to the babies?). The notion that the Holy Spirit would leave the planet to the devices of the evil one is as ridiculous as it is anti-Christian. One might wonder how many demons actually stay up late at night hoping for just such an eventuality. The rapture as well as the idea that God would leave planet earth is the doctrine of cowards. The Bible never teaches that one should hide from trouble. It teaches that one should face it with God's help.

My prayer is NOT that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.
- Jesus (John 17:15)

Which part of NOT does the reader NOT understand?

Having said all that, I suggest that scripture implies something other than spiritual restraint of the enemies of Israel is to be removed.

Something OTHER than spiritual restraint?

How about cultural restraint?

Have you read the news lately? Cultural attitudes worldwide are becoming anti-semitic. Or perhaps they were always present and have just been hiding beneath the surface of polite tolerance. Demonstrations against Jews and the nation of Israel are becoming more vocal all the time. It's becoming fashionable (again) to hate Jews and Zionism.

How about political restraint?

​Nations which have politely respected Israel are now drawing lines against that small nation. I'm writing about real nations and real people. Nations with trade ties and people with resolute opinions in opposition to the existence of Israel and its citizens. Even the United States, once a bastion of support, is now abandoning Israel to the wolves.

How about military restraint?

Granted that no organized assault against Israel has been put into operation in recent years, it is nonetheless being planned and called for by all the regional enemies of Israel. Israel is tired of constant warfare and threats. Her people want peace and security and are nearly ready to sell their souls to get it.

When they cry peace and safety, brokered in the form of a treaty by a man of lies, they will grasp it with both hands. The Bible says that when they do this they will be betrayed and stabbed in the back (a typical Muslim response to a promise (*)).

The restraints, therefore, are cultural, political and in the end military. When the last 'military' restraint is removed Israel will be attacked.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

(*) Islam is THE ONLY religion on the planet that sanctions lying. And the father of lies is - guess who?

"The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts."
- Abdullan Al-Araby (Muslim theologian, philosopher and leader)

2 doctrines of religious deception:
taqiyya - (concealment) A muslim may lie about what they believe, denying aspects of their faith that are offensive [to others].
[Qur'an 16:106]

kitman - (mental reservation, the telling of partial truth with intention to deceive or mislead)
"the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation,
or to refuse." - Ibn Kathir

 

[StanJ]

The bonehead idea that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit is born of the heresy of the rapture.(John 17:15)

Always amazes me how vitriolic and vehement some so-called Christians can get. The only bonehead I see is the person calling others one.

 

[BlackManINC]

Let me ask you all this, do you believe that God is ultimately the one in control of the worlds fate? If not, then the holy spirit cannot possibly have anything at all to do with he who "restrains" or withholds the revealing of the man of lawlessness, as the holy spirit is essentially apart of God. However, if you do believe that God is ultimately in control, then logically the holy spirit would have to have something to do with that which restrains the revealing of the beast of revelation, and his restraining power will eventually be taken away. Until you can answer this simple underlying question for yourself scripturally, all this bickering about the identity of "the restrainer" is pointless. Personally, I believe that the Holy Spirit has to have something to do with the restrainer because its the only thing that makes since to me scriptually. Some people believe that the angel Michael is the restrainer, others believe its Satan, however, its not backed up in any way shape or form to any meaningful degree in scripture.

 

[StanJ]

Let me ask you all this, do you believe that God is ultimately the one in control of the worlds fate? If not, then the holy spirit cannot possibly have anything at all to do with he who "restrains" or withholds the revealing of the man of lawlessness, as the holy spirit is essentially apart of God. However, if you do believe that God is ultimately in control, then logically the holy spirit would have to have something to do with that which restrains the revealing of the beast of revelation, and his restraining power will eventually be taken away. Until you can answer this simple underlying question for yourself scripturally, all this bickering about the identity of "the restrainer" is pointless. Personally, I believe that the Holy Spirit has to have something to do with the restrainer because its the only thing that makes since to me scriptually. Some people believe that the angel Michael is the restrainer, others believe its Satan, however, its not backed up in any way shape or form to any meaningful degree in scripture.

You might want to proof read this post of yours BMI, because it contradicts itself. God is triune and consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as clearly taught in the NT. The NT is the revelation and start of the NC. NEW is the operative word here.

I suggest ANY that want to actually learn about this read the following eBook;

http://www.christianbook.com/understanding-times-prophecy-comprehensive-approach-ebook/paul-benware/9781575674834/pd/10752EB?event=AAI

 

[BlackManINC]

You might want to proof read this post of yours BMI, because it contradicts itself. God is triune and consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as clearly taught in the NT. The NT is the revelation and start of the NC. NEW is the operative word here.

I suggest ANY that want to actually learn about this read the following eBook;

http://www.christianbook.com/understanding-times-prophecy-comprehensive-approach-ebook/paul-benware/9781575674834/pd/10752EB?event=AAI

I never said God wasn't triune in nature so I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[StanJ]

I never said God wasn't triune in nature so I have no idea what you are talking about.

That's why I said you contradicted yourself. At first you say he is a part of God then you say he is God. Maybe it's just me but that is contradictory IMO.

 

[Phoneman777]

Always amazes me how vitriolic and vehement some so-called Christians can get. The only bonehead I see is the person calling others one.

He didn't call anyone a bonehead - he referred to the bonehead idea of a Holy Spirit Restrainer as "bonehead". BTW, does the fact that you called him a bonehead now make you a "so-called" Christian as well?

And you don't know whose website to which you linked whose words you parrot... Good day.

And your sad devotion to Jesuit Futurism compels you to not offer any explanation at all for why Paul chose to conceal the identity of your "Holy Spirit/Agent of Holiness" Restrainer , because you know that anything you say will only further expose your position as completely bankrupt. Give Historicism a chance, for heaven's sake.

 

[BlackManINC]

That's why I said you contradicted yourself. At first you say he is a part of God then you say he is God. Maybe it's just me but that is contradictory IMO.

Yes, it is just you Mr. Stan. The Holy Ghost, Jesus and the father are separate yet one with each other. if you've experienced the Holy Ghost, then you've experienced the presence of Jesus for the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Lord. If you've seen Jesus, then you've seen the father, because they are interchangeable in essence. Capeesh?

 

[StanJ]

Yes, it is just you Mr. Stan. The Holy Ghost, Jesus and the father are separate yet one with each other. if you've experienced the Holy Ghost, then you've experienced the presence of Jesus for the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Lord. If you've seen Jesus, then you've seen the father, because they are interchangeable in essence. Capeesh?

Three in one is NOT separate BMI...capeesh?

 

[Phoneman777]

You might want to proof read this post of yours BMI, because it contradicts itself. God is triune and consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as clearly taught in the NT. The NT is the revelation and start of the NC. NEW is the operative word here.

I suggest ANY that want to actually learn about this read the following eBook;

http://www.christianbook.com/understanding-times-prophecy-comprehensive-approach-ebook/paul-benware/9781575674834/pd/10752EB?event=AAI

I disagree, because he's spouting Jesuit errors. We are better off listening to some of what Lord Ian Paisley has to say:
http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp

 

[BlackManINC]

Three in one is NOT separate BMI...capeesh?

No I really don't get it, elaborate using scripture that says Jesus is nothing more than an appendage to the fathers being like you believe he is and I'll believe you....Capeesh?

 

[StanJ]

No I really don't get it, elaborate using scripture that says Jesus is nothing more than an appendage to the fathers being like you believe he is and I'll believe you....Capeesh?

and there is the evidence to your problem. I never even hinted at that. You're the one that stated he is a PART. Apparently you don't understand what you yourself write?

 

[BlackManINC]

and there is the evidence to your problem. I never even hinted at that. You're the one that stated he is a PART. Apparently you don't understand what you yourself write?

Never said he wasn't, you said he was NOTHING MORE than a PART of the father when he is more than an appendage. Apparently you don't understand what I've clearly written.

 

[StanJ]

as the holy spirit is essentially apart of God.

Did you say this BMI?

Never said he wasn't, you said he was NOTHING MORE than a PART of the father when he is more than an appendage. Apparently you don't understand what I've clearly written.

Nope, but feel free to show me in which post as I did for you above.

 

[BlackManINC]

Did you say this BMI?

Nope, but feel free to show me in which post as I did for you above.

"Three in one is NOT separate BMI...capeesh?"

There you are hinting at it Mr. Stan, picking part of what I actually said so you can rob what I said of its context. I'll repeat myself for the last time, they are essentially three in one, yet separate entities. This is is not some Jesuit doctrine as some other creature accused me of spouting, this is scripture. Capeesh?

 

[StanJ]

"Three in one is NOT separate BMI...capeesh?"

There you are hinting at it Mr. Stan, picking part of what I actually said so you can rob what I said of its context. I'll repeat myself for the last time, they are essentially three in one, yet separate entities. This is is not some Jesuit doctrine as some other creature accused me of spouting, this is scripture. Capeesh?

Now you're just avoiding direct questions. Three in one does NOT mean a part or separate, it means three IN one. I have no idea why you and others keep alluding to Jesuit doctrine but to me it's just used to deflect from the real issue.

Do you know what the Shema is? You can find it in Deut 6:4-9. Verse 4 says it all. God is ONE entity, NOT three, and that entity is triune in nature. If you can't or won't wrap your head around that there's nothing more I can tell you. CAPEESH?

 

[Phoneman777]

"Three in one is NOT separate BMI...capeesh?"

There you are hinting at it Mr. Stan, picking part of what I actually said so you can rob what I said of its context. I'll repeat myself for the last time, they are essentially three in one, yet separate entities. This is is not some Jesuit doctrine as some other creature accused me of spouting, this is scripture. Capeesh?

You are correct. God is three persons, not one entity. Some claim this is evidence that Christianity is polytheism, but nothing is further from the truth. The three are one in mind, in unity, in purpose, yet they are three separate entities:

When the Second Person in the Godhead (Son) was being baptized in the River Jordan, the First Person in the Godhead (Father) spoke with awesome thundering from where He was in the heavens as the Third Person in the Godhead (Holy Spirit) descended from heaven as a dove down to Jesus where He stood.

Stan's idea that God is one entity, not three, is the Catholic (Jesuit) idea of the "Trinity", which is BS but I'm not surprised that he subscribes to it, seeing he embraces so many other of their ideas.