farouk
Well-Known Member
He that letteth - the Restrainer - tends to be understood by dispensationalists as a reference to the Holy Spirit.
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!
How does take no cares for tomorrow fit in to dispensationism.He that letteth - the Restrainer - tends to be understood by dispensationalists as a reference to the Holy Spirit.
How do you mean?How does take no cares for tomorrow fit in to dispensationism.
Trying hard to process this line of thought, yesterday at my uncles funeral both preachers, oh if Jesus would come right now and take us to heaven. We just want to see Jesus????shame I had to tell them I see him, I see him in uncles, aunts ,friends ,family ,strangers. He never left.How do you mean?
But it says in 2 Thess 2 that the MOS is revealed after the restrainer is taken away, so the world and the flesh must still be there after that.
But it says in 2 Thess 2 that the MOS is revealed after the restrainer is taken away, so the world and the flesh must still be there after that.
For the sake of conversation I would ask you how you see Romans 11:25-28
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. [26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: [27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. [28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
“That blindness in part has happened to Israel” What do you think restrains them from seeing?
when do you think death is swallowed up in victory?
who He (Jesus) destroys with the brightness of His coming...when do you think death is swallowed up in victory?
Just trying to understand if you believe that man of sin (the disobedient) is someone other than sin unto death in Adam rather that obedience unto righteousness in Christ?
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".I thought you wanted a "reasonable, Bible based discussion"? So far, all I see is an attempt to cast doubt on what are facts of history as a means to derail any such discussion.
Yes, they knew, but the text doesn't say outright.The reasonable, Biblical historic facts are:
1) In 2 Thess. 2, the early church knew what was the Restrainer because Paul told them so:
2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth (what "restraineth") that he (Man of Sin) might be revealed in his time.
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?2) The Early Church Fathers with one unanimous voice said that Paul told the early church it was the Roman Empire and expected the Man of Sin to arise after its fall...without exception.
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?3) If the Restrainer were truly an "agent of holiness", either the Holy Spirit, the "Holy Spirit filled church", "Michael the Archangel", etc, etc, etc, then why didn't Paul freely say so?
- Would not doing so be a tremendous encouragement to the early, fledgling, persecuted church - that despite their wretched state, God's "agent of holiness" has a celestial boot on the throat of the Man of Sin?
- Does it make sense to assume that Paul - who not even once failed to proclaim God's might and power to pagans, be they kings to commoners - had suddenly become too timid to openly proclaim the identity and power of this supposed "agent of holiness" Restrainer to God's own blood-washed people?
I didn't say I doubted them. I think a lot of respect and consideration ought to be given to them. But we must be aware that these were but men writing. They were not inspired, therefore their thoughts and opinions are liable...just as we have today...to be faulty or based upon misunderstandings. And we know from scrpture, that even back then, even with the apostles there, that there were plenty of false teachings.4) Is it reasonable to doubt the writings of the ECF when they lived not too far removed from the day of Paul and were well aware of the prevailing teachings of that church imparted to them by him?
Again...I would want to see and read these 'unanimous' sources first.5) Does not the "remarkable unanimity" of the ECF about the identity of the Restrainer at the very least demand investigation as to why there conclusions were so identical?
So, which Restrainer makes more sense: an "agent of holiness" or Pagan Rome?
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.Luke 18:30 Lexicon: who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."
is likely more a primer for verifying the definition of Eternal as "age-long," constructed so as to allow one to keep believing "eternal" means "forever" if they want to do so; being as how the same root is used on purpose, when other expressions were available, and the juxtaposition of "this time" there for "this age" is even telling imo, iow "Eternal" is being defined concisely from two diff povs imo.
"double-minded" might also clarify a little in that pov?
but I don't want to appear to deny a literal resurrection, Bc I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but I think we have enough other Scripture to make our concept of going up to heaven after we die and becoming immortals pretty much moot, as much as we might like to wish otherwise
Could you rephrase this part? Thanks
I think this is saying that it will occur after the rapture. Those raptured will be given immortal bodies, their victory over death being assured. I think there will still be a mortal fleshly world after the rapture that the AC will live and reign over for a time, but when Jesus does come again, that is what He will do to the AC. Destroy AC with His coming.
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'?Well, yeah, as for the idea of restraining, and deception by Satan, they are linked. But the time of the event in 2 Thess.2 is not... linked to the Rev.20 chapter.
The beginning of 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul is warning the brethren that before Christ's return and gathering of the Church, that man of sin must be revealed along with that apostasy happening.
It is surely as easy to say the restrainer is evil just as it is to say it is good?
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'
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.I thought you wanted a "reasonable, Bible based discussion"? So far, all I see is an attempt to cast doubt on what are facts of history as a means to derail any such discussion. The reasonable, Biblical historic facts are:
1) In 2 Thess. 2, the early church knew what was the Restrainer because Paul told them so:
2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth (what "restraineth") that he (Man of Sin) might be revealed in his time.
2) The Early Church Fathers with one unanimous voice said that Paul told the early church it was the Roman Empire and expected the Man of Sin to arise after its fall...without exception.
3) If the Restrainer were truly an "agent of holiness", either the Holy Spirit, the "Holy Spirit filled church", "Michael the Archangel", etc, etc, etc, then why didn't Paul freely say so?
4) Is it reasonable to doubt the writings of the ECF when they lived not too far removed from the day of Paul and were well aware of the prevailing teachings of that church imparted to them by him?
- Would not doing so be a tremendous encouragement to the early, fledgling, persecuted church - that despite their wretched state, God's "agent of holiness" has a celestial boot on the throat of the Man of Sin?
- Does it make sense to assume that Paul - who not even once failed to proclaim God's might and power to pagans, be they kings to commoners - had suddenly become too timid to openly proclaim the identity and power of this supposed "agent of holiness" Restrainer to God's own blood-washed people?
5) Does not the "remarkable unanimity" of the ECF about the identity of the Restrainer at the very least demand investigation as to why there conclusions were so identical?
So, which Restrainer makes more sense: an "agent of holiness" or Pagan Rome?
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.Why does Paul not state who the Restrainer is either way?
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....then I believe the onus is upon you to provide references to these texts, does it not?
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.Paul has just told them that a great evil is being restrained.
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. And that in God's time, it will be released, and the Christ will slay him by the breath of his mouth at his coming
I don't think it makes sense for the Restrainer to be evil, for if it were, what interest would it have in prolonging the coming of Antichrist?
Yeah I don't really see Pagan Rome fitting the bill here. In futurist terms, the MOS will harness and rule the equivalent of a modern day Roman empire, so it's not exactly 'removed' out of the way as it is a vehicle to further the agenda.
It does sound like you accept a Final singular MOS @Naomi25. I believe this is actually a tenet of Futurism