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?