Understanding "THE MAN OF SIN IS REVEALED" passage.

[Randy Kluth]

I already told you several times...why do you want to make me keep repeating myself?

You said the ECFs thought the Roman Empire was the Antichrist.
I corrected you by showing they taught the Roman Empire was the Restrainer.
Then, I directed you to this link --

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

-- in order for you to become properly acquainted with Historicism and what the ECFs believed, because you are at the moment improperly acquainted with both.

I posted something about this we talked about a *year ago,* in which I agreed with you that the ECFs believed the Roman Empire was the Restrainer of 2 Thes 2. Didn't you read that either?

I view the ECFs as historicist interpreters in the sense they believed the Roman Kingdom was the 4th and last Kingdom of Daniel, which was to be taken over by the Antichrist. Some may have even believed Nero was the Antichrist.

As such, I view the ECFs not just as historicist interpreters but also futurist interpreters because they believed the man, the Antichrist, still hadn't come. Only the Kingdom that would be taken over by him had come.

What I said in that post was this: "Again, the ECFs and I also have believed that Antichrist emerges out of the old Roman Empire. But this is not counter to Futurism, which most often believes in a literal Antichrist figure at the end of history, quite distinct from the movements that precede him.
As such, I call ECFs not Historicists, but rather, Futurists. And that's how I also identify."

My point was that I share with the ECFs the belief that the Roman Kingdom was the predecessor to the MAN, the Antichrist. As such, I view them as Futurists, believing, as they did, in a future Man, the Antichrist, who would proceed to take control of the Roman Empire and fulfill its role as THE Beast, the Kingdom of the Antichrist.

But I clearly was not saying that I think the Roman Empire was alone, the Antichrist. It was believed by the ECFs to be the Antichrist only in the sense it was the 4th Kingdom of Daniel, the last Kingdom prior to the coming of Christ's Kingdom, and as such, the Kingdom that would lead to the rule of Antichrist.

That is precisely how I was putting my belief, and precisely what I meant, if you look at it in context. I was *not* saying the Roman Empire was the Antichrist in the sense of being the Antichrist apart from the arrival of the Man of Sin, the Antichrist himself!

Perhaps I need to communicate better? This is what a Wikpedia article says about this, which is what I was trying to say: HERE

"Origins in Judaism and Early Church
The interpreters using the historicist approach for the Book of Revelation had their origins in the Jewish apocalyptic writings, such as those in the Book of Daniel, which predicted the future time between their writing and the end of the world. Throughout most of history since the predictions of the book of Daniel, historicism has been widely used. This approach can be found in the works of Josephus, who interpreted the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 as the Roman empire with a future power as the stone "not cut by human hands", that would overthrow the Romans.[9] It is also found in the early church in the works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, who interpreted the fourth kingdom of Daniel as the Roman empire and believed that in the future it was going to be broken up into smaller kingdoms, as the iron mixed with clay,[10] and in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Jerome,[11] as well as other well-known church historians and scholars of the early church. But it has been associated particularly with Protestantism and the Reformation. It was the standard interpretation of the Lollard movement, which was regarded as the precursor to the Protestant Reformation, and it was known as the Protestant interpretation until modern times."

My point is that the ECFs can be viewed, in a sense, as both historicist interpreters and futurist interpreters, just as I do. They rightly believed the 4th Kingdom of Daniel was the Antichrist Empire, but that the Antichrist himself had *not yet come*--his coming was still in the future. I hope this makes it clear, because I have no wish to fall out with you.

 

[Phoneman777]

I posted something about this we talked about a *year ago,* in which I agreed with you that the ECFs believed the Roman Empire was the Restrainer of 2 Thes 2. Didn't you read that either?

I don't remember what you said a year ago, but I do know you recently said the ECFs believed Rome was the Antichrist.

I view the ECFs as historicist interpreters in the sense they believed the Roman Kingdom was the 4th and last Kingdom of Daniel, which was to be taken over by the Antichrist. Some may have even believed Nero was the Antichrist.

Yes, Rome was the fourth beast which fell into ten barbarian divisions (ten horns) and among them "came up another Little Horn" - the Papal Antichrist.

As such, I view the ECFs not just as historicist interpreters but also futurist interpreters because they believed the man, the Antichrist, still hadn't come. Only the Kingdom that would be taken over by him had come. What I said in that post was this: "Again, the ECFs and I also have believed that Antichrist emerges out of the old Roman Empire. But this is not counter to Futurism, which most often believes in a literal Antichrist figure at the end of history, quite distinct from the movements that precede him. As such, I call ECFs not Historicists, but rather, Futurists.

Believing a future prophecy will be fulfilled in the future makes one a "Futurist"? No, but believing the following does:

Futurists believe a rebuilt Jerusalem temple is pertinent to end times prophecy.
Futurists believe in a 7 year tribulation.
Futurists believe the coming Antichrist will broker a 7 year peace treaty between Arabs and Jews.
Futurists believe the coming Antichrist will break that treaty in 3 1/2 years and launch Armageddon.
Futurists believe Daniel 7's "prince" is the Antichrist, not Jesus Christ.
Futurists believe in a 2,000+ year "gap" between the 69th and the 70th Weeks of Daniel.
Futurists believe Jesus will sneak into town and sneak out with the saints in a "secret rapture".

The ECFs believed in none of this.

My point was that I share with the ECFs the belief that the Roman Kingdom was the predecessor to the MAN, the Antichrist. As such, I view them as Futurists, believing, as they did, in a future Man, the Antichrist, who would proceed to take control of the Roman Empire and fulfill its role as THE Beast, the Kingdom of the Antichrist.

I grant you that they thought the Antichrist would be a singular "man" -- but did not God tell Daniel to "seal up the book until the Time of the End"?

Now, I ask you, does it make sense to rely on the ECF's cloudy view of "sealed up" Daniel and Revelation or should we rely the clear vision eschatology of the Protestant Reformation which "the Time of the End" provided?

Of course, we ought to rely on the latter, not the former.

But I clearly was not saying that I think the Roman Empire was alone, the Antichrist.

Good, because Rome was the 4th beast, which fell apart into ten horns, and the Little Horn papal Antichrist rose up among them. I'll attach some pictures to show how the Reformers paid good money to ensure that you and me and the rest of posterity knew where they stood.

It was believed by the ECFs to be the Antichrist only in the sense it was the 4th Kingdom of Daniel, the last Kingdom prior to the coming of Christ's Kingdom, and as such, the Kingdom that would lead to the rule of Antichrist.

Why do you keep saying this? Please, if you can't read the entire link I sent, at least scroll down to the section which deals with what they said about the Restrainer - don't take my word for it, check out their words.

My point is that the ECFs can be viewed, in a sense, as both historicist interpreters and futurist interpreters, just as I do. They rightly believed the 4th Kingdom of Daniel was the Antichrist Empire, but that the Antichrist himself had *not yet come*--his coming was still in the future. I hope this makes it clear, because I have no wish to fall out with you.

What you've written here is textbook Historicism - many Futurists actually deny Rome has fallen! I've heard many Futurists make the claim that Rome will have completely fallen only when the Antichrist arises at the start of the 7 year tribulation. Ever heard of Irvin Baxter and his popular "End Time" broadcast?

Hopefully, after reading this post you'll understand that the ECFs couldn't help but believe Antichrist would be one singular individual based on Daniel being sealed until the Time of the End, but during the Reformation the book opened up to reveal it is the succession of unholy popes....which means the only thing the ECFs have in common with Futurism is that they believed the coming of Antichrist was future, right?

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Yes, Rome was the fourth beast which fell into ten barbarian divisions (ten horns) and among them "came up another Little Horn" - the Papal Antichrist.

For starters, the 10 simply mean completeness, thus complete Europe divided (Rome fell apart), and complete Europe came back not as one but as many(10 means all 25 or so E.U. Nations), thus partly strong partly weak. The Little Horn is not a Pope/The Papal.

Believing a future prophecy will be fulfilled in the future makes one a "Futurist"? No, but believing the following does:

I don't do tags per se, we who believe Jesus believe these things have not yet come to pass because they are the HEREAFTER, and thus the 70th week comes after the Church Age.

Futurists believe a rebuilt Jerusalem temple is pertinent to end times prophecy.
Futurists believe in a 7 year tribulation.
Futurists believe the coming Antichrist will broker a 7 year peace treaty between Arabs and Jews.
Futurists believe the coming Antichrist will break that treaty in 3 1/2 years and launch Armageddon.
Futurists believe Daniel 7's "prince" is the Antichrist, not Jesus Christ.
Futurists believe in a 2,000+ year "gap" between the 69th and the 70th Weeks of Daniel.
Futurists believe Jesus will sneak into town and sneak out with the saints in a "secret rapture".

Realists believe, not futurists.

I think a temple probably has to be built, but a tent sufficed before a temple was built. But I think it is built

No, we believe in a 70th week where 3.5 years is the Greatest Ever Troubles (Jacob's trouble).

No, most do not go that angle tbh, we believe the Anti-Christ makes an agreement with Israel, which in reality imho, is just Israel joining the E.U. The peace between Israel and the Arabs of the Psalm 83 war which lasted from 1948 to 2010ish, has already happened, that was the Abraham Accords put forth by the Trump White House. That way when Gog & Magog happens shortly, no nations with a common birder with Israel will join in that war.

The Anti-Christ (E.U. President) will come against Israel 3.5 years after they join the E.U.

I may be wrong but I do nit think any Prince is mentioned in Dan. 7, he is called the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in Dan. 7. In Dan. 8:25 Jesus is called the Prince of princes with a capital P. In Dan. 9:25 Jesus is called "Messiah the Prince" both capitalized. In Dan. 9:27 the Anti-Christ is simply called the prince to come (small p) so not many do not understand that is referring to the Anti-Christ to come, the translators understood it via the capitalized letters, Daniel understood it also, he wrote it.

Futurists believe in a 2,000+ year "gap" between the 69th and the 70th Weeks of Daniel.

If 70 AD was the end that would have meant a 30 plus year gap. The Prophesies ate not one, but three, The Wall, the Messiah's death, and the Anti-Christ to comes 7 year agreement. Israel birthed the Messiah (her calling) and then God took away her calling because of disobedience and rejecting God/Jesus, and gave that mantle to the Gentiles. When the Time of the Gentiles comes full (if one reads Rom. 9-11 they can see this) the Churches mission is complete, then Israel takes on the mantle again, they MUST REPENT during the 70th week so that when Jesus returns he can set up a Kingdom Age. That is Israel callings, which is without repentance.

Futurists believe Jesus will sneak into town and sneak out with the saints in a "secret rapture".

Any Christian using common sense understands the Rapture is Pre Trib. I have destroyed you guys understandings 100s of time, but you run off and never reply. Most of you guys really do not understand prophesy at all tbh.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't remember what you said a year ago, but I do know you recently said the ECFs believed Rome was the Antichrist.

In post #133 I gave you the link and a partial quote:
Well, I just briefly did a search, and saw this discussion between you and me! Who Is "the Restrainer" In 2 Thess. 2:6-7
It's dated in February 5 of this last year, where I said in post #554: "I agree that the Early Church had the view that the Roman Empire was the Restrainer and the Restraint of Antichrist's appearance."

I'm not asking you to remember a year ago. I'm asking you to note that you're not telling me anything I don't know. This indicates I knew the Roman Empire was believed to be the Restrainer by the ECFs at least a year ago. It was actually much longer that I knew this. You mocked me for saying I knew these things already because you apparently didn't believe me.

This is evidence that when I said the ECFs believed the Roman Empire was, in a sense, the Antichrist, I was *not* saying they believed it was THE Antichrist, but only the predecessor to that Kingdom, the Kingdom out of which Antichrist would appear. I hope you finally understand what I meant?

Yes, Rome was the fourth beast which fell into ten barbarian divisions (ten horns) and among them "came up another Little Horn" - the Papal Antichrist.

Believing a future prophecy will be fulfilled in the future makes one a "Futurist"? No, but believing the following does:

Yes, by definition, a Futurist is one who believes the book of Revelation will be fulfilled in the future. My argument was that it can be argued that the ECFs were a mix of Historicist and Futurist because they believed the Roman Kingdom was the fulfillment of the book of Revelation, with some of it to be fulfilled in the future in a literal Antichrist.

Futurists believe a rebuilt Jerusalem temple is pertinent to end times prophecy.
Futurists believe in a 7 year tribulation.
Futurists believe the coming Antichrist will broker a 7 year peace treaty between Arabs and Jews.
Futurists believe the coming Antichrist will break that treaty in 3 1/2 years and launch Armageddon.
Futurists believe Daniel 7's "prince" is the Antichrist, not Jesus Christ.
Futurists believe in a 2,000+ year "gap" between the 69th and the 70th Weeks of Daniel.
Futurists believe Jesus will sneak into town and sneak out with the saints in a "secret rapture".

That's false. That's a specific kind of Futurism--not Futurism in general. There are Futurists who are not Dispensationalists who believe other than these points. Your points describe Dispensationalism--at least many of them. But they don't accurately describe Futurism--just one kind of it.

Good, because Rome was the 4th beast, which fell apart into ten horns, and the Little Horn papal Antichrist rose up among them. I'll attach some pictures to show how the Reformers paid good money to ensure that you and me and the rest of posterity knew where they stood.'

The Pope was not, I think, the Antichrist. I would argue, however, that some Popes were very much antichrists of a sort. The final Antichrist emerges from the Roman/European Kingdom, controlling 10 nations and leading a coalition of 7 leaders among those nations. The Popes did not fit that definition at all.

Why do you keep saying this? Please, if you can't read the entire link I sent, at least scroll down to the section which deals with what they said about the Restrainer - don't take my word for it, check out their words.

I believe I read some of your link from the start and saw nothing new. I already know what the ECFs believed about the Restrainer--I've showed you repeatedly that I knew this. I gave you a year-old link to show you that I did. Did you read that?

What you've written here is textbook Historicism - many Futurists actually deny Rome has fallen! I've heard many Futurists make the claim that Rome will have completely fallen only when the Antichrist arises at the start of the 7 year tribulation. Ever heard of Irvin Baxter and his popular "End Time" broadcast?

You don't seem to be aware of how many different schools there are within the broad categories of Futurism and Historicism, as well as even Dispensationalism. There are divergencies of opinion on various prophecies and texts. I personally define Futurism as those who believe the Revelation speaks of an endtime scenario under a literal Antichrist. But I also believe that Revelation depicted that the Antichristian phenomenon began in the time of Jesus and the Apostles. The Roman Empire was, as I said, the 4th and final Kingdom to appear on earth when Christ's Kingdom will come.

Hopefully, after reading this post you'll understand that the ECFs couldn't help but believe Antichrist would be one singular individual based on Daniel being sealed until the Time of the End, but during the Reformation the book opened up to reveal it is the succession of unholy popes....which means the only thing the ECFs have in common with Futurism is that they believed the coming of Antichrist was future, right?

I've not said anything different. Maybe you need to re-read our discussion, realizing that I do know these things. They are *not* new to me!

 

[Phoneman777]

For starters, the 10 simply mean completeness, thus complete Europe divided (Rome fell apart), and complete Europe came back not as one but as many(10 means all 25 or so E.U. Nations), thus partly strong partly weak. The Little Horn is not a Pope/The Papal.


I don't do tags per se, we who believe Jesus believe these things have not yet come to pass because they are the HEREAFTER, and thus the 70th week comes after the Church Age.


Realists believe, not futurists.

I think a temple probably has to be built, but a tent sufficed before a temple was built. But I think it is built

No, we believe in a 70th week where 3.5 years is the Greatest Ever Troubles (Jacob's trouble).

No, most do not go that angle tbh, we believe the Anti-Christ makes an agreement with Israel, which in reality imho, is just Israel joining the E.U. The peace between Israel and the Arabs of the Psalm 83 war which lasted from 1948 to 2010ish, has already happened, that was the Abraham Accords put forth by the Trump White House. That way when Gog & Magog happens shortly, no nations with a common birder with Israel will join in that war.

The Anti-Christ (E.U. President) will come against Israel 3.5 years after they join the E.U.

I may be wrong but I do nit think any Prince is mentioned in Dan. 7, he is called the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in Dan. 7. In Dan. 8:25 Jesus is called the Prince of princes with a capital P. In Dan. 9:25 Jesus is called "Messiah the Prince" both capitalized. In Dan. 9:27 the Anti-Christ is simply called the prince to come (small p) so not many do not understand that is referring to the Anti-Christ to come, the translators understood it via the capitalized letters, Daniel understood it also, he wrote it.


If 70 AD was the end that would have meant a 30 plus year gap. The Prophesies ate not one, but three, The Wall, the Messiah's death, and the Anti-Christ to comes 7 year agreement. Israel birthed the Messiah (her calling) and then God took away her calling because of disobedience and rejecting God/Jesus, and gave that mantle to the Gentiles. When the Time of the Gentiles comes full (if one reads Rom. 9-11 they can see this) the Churches mission is complete, then Israel takes on the mantle again, they MUST REPENT during the 70th week so that when Jesus returns he can set up a Kingdom Age. That is Israel callings, which is without repentance.


Any Christian using common sense understands the Rapture is Pre Trib. I have destroyed you guys understandings 100s of time, but you run off and never reply. Most of you guys really do not understand prophesy at all tbh.

Holy smoke! A died in the wool Jesuit Futurist who doesn't know a thing about Protestant Historicism, and yet insists that Protestant Historicism is false! No way!

Seriously, friend, would you like to go through the prophecies and discover why Historicism is fact and Jesuit Futurism, like Jesuit Preterism, is nothing more than a satanic papal lie? If not, let's at least examine what you said about the EU:

The the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Daniel, Babylon, MP, Greece, and Rome, are all consecutive - as soon as soon as Babylon went down, MP arose; when MP went down, Greece arose, etc. Can you see that your interpretation - which has as the fulfillment of the Ten Horns the EU which arose over FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AFTER ROME FELL - is totally inconsistent with the consecutive rise and fall of the preceding empires of Daniel? "Consistency, thou art a jewel". If we don't maintain interpretive consistency, we can make Bible prophecy say whatever we want.

Ten "barbarian" Horns which arose when Rome fell:
Anglo Saxons = England
Francs = France
Visigoths = Spain
Suevi = Portugal
Alemanni = Germany
Burgundians = Swiss
Lombards = Italy

Heruli = extinct
Vandals = extinct
Ostrogoths = extinct

Did you notice three of those tribes went extinct? Did you read where Daniel 7 said the Little Horn would arise among the Ten Horns and three of them would be "plucked up by their roots" by it? History confirms that when the papacy arose, it had those three horns destroyed and it went on to fulfill all the identifying marks of Antichrist in prophecy. The great Protestant Reformers paid good money to ensure you, me, and and the rest of posterity would always remember Historicism was the only truth they taught:

The German "Rathous" Sculptures

​

​

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Antichrist is called "the Beast" in the book of Revelation. As such, he is identified with the 4th Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, which is commonly identified with the Roman Empire.

Therefore, the Antichrist is to be viewed, I think, as both the Kingdom that precedes him as well as the individual ruler who will eventually control that Kingdom. The 2nd Beast of Revelation 13 is, I believe, later identified as the "False Prophet." Both the "Beast" and the "False Prophet" are identified as individuals and also as individual rulers over larger kingdoms.

The 1st Beast controls a Kingdom that began with the Roman Empire, which temporarily restrained the coming of the Antichrist. The Caesars temporarily restrained the appearance of Antichrist by establishing bilateral but a monolithic set of powers, who prevented the rise of the kind of ruler that Antichrist would be.

Antichrist himself would only take power after the Roman Empire had broken up into 10 major states, allowing Antichrist to assemble them, with the help of 7 of their leaders, into a reborn Roman Empire. This may or may not be the "mortal wound that was healed."

The 2nd Beast would control a religious kingdom, designed to give religious service to the Antichrist. As such, he may very well be a corrupt Catholic Pope who reunites the old 2 halves of the old Roman Church, East and West. By uniting Eastern and Western Catholic Churches, and by corrupting them, he may achieve devotion of nominal Catholics to the Antichristian system in Europe.

The Early Church Fathers rightly believed that the Roman Empire was the initial stage of the rise of Antichrist, since it was the predecessor to the reborn Roman Empire of the last days. The Reformers rightly believed that the Roman Church, in its corrupted form, would figure into this Antichristian development, though the popes were not yet that False Prophet, nor were any of them the Antichrist.

I hope that makes my position clear? I do not believe the Early Church Fathers believed the ancient Roman Empire was THE Antichrist, as in the individual ruler who will preside over the reborn Roman Empire. But I believe the ECFs thought the Roman Empire would be the final Kingdom over which the Antichrist would assume power and lead the world in a rebellion against Jesus. As such, they believed that the ancient Roman Empire was the preliminary Antichristian movement towards the rise of the individual Antichrist. This is absolutely true.

 

[Truth7t7]

The Antichrist is called "the Beast" in the book of Revelation. As such, he is identified with the 4th Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, which is commonly identified with the Roman Empire.

Therefore, the Antichrist is to be viewed, I think, as both the Kingdom that precedes him as well as the individual ruler who will eventually control that Kingdom. The 2nd Beast of Revelation 13 is, I believe, later identified as the "False Prophet." Both the "Beast" and the "False Prophet" are identified as individuals and also as individual rulers over larger kingdoms.

The 1st Beast controls a Kingdom that began with the Roman Empire, which temporarily restrained the coming of the Antichrist. The Caesars temporarily restrained the appearance of Antichrist by establishing bilateral but a monolithic set of powers, who prevented the rise of the kind of ruler that Antichrist would be.

Antichrist himself would only take power after the Roman Empire had broken up into 10 major states, allowing Antichrist to assemble them, with the help of 7 of their leaders, into a reborn Roman Empire. This may or may not be the "mortal wound that was healed."

The 2nd Beast would control a religious kingdom, designed to give religious service to the Antichrist. As such, he may very well be a corrupt Catholic Pope who reunites the old 2 halves of the old Roman Church, East and West. By uniting Eastern and Western Catholic Churches, and by corrupting them, he may achieve devotion of nominal Catholics to the Antichristian system in Europe.

The Early Church Fathers rightly believed that the Roman Empire was the initial stage of the rise of Antichrist, since it was the predecessor to the reborn Roman Empire of the last days. The Reformers rightly believed that the Roman Church, in its corrupted form, would figure into this Antichristian development, though the popes were not yet that False Prophet, nor were any of them the Antichrist.

I hope that makes my position clear? I do not believe the Early Church Fathers believed the ancient Roman Empire was THE Antichrist, as in the individual ruler who will preside over the reborn Roman Empire. But I believe the ECFs thought the Roman Empire would be the final Kingdom over which the Antichrist would assume power and lead the world in a rebellion against Jesus. As such, they believed that the ancient Roman Empire was the preliminary Antichristian movement towards the rise of the individual Antichrist. This is absolutely true.

The reformers believed the popes was the living antichrist of their times, and that Rome was mystery Babylon

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Holy smoke! A died in the wool Jesuit Futurist who doesn't know a thing about Protestant Historicism, and yet insists that Protestant Historicism is false! No way!

Seriously, friend, would you like to go through the prophecies and discover why Historicism is fact and Jesuit Futurism, like Jesuit Preterism, is nothing more than a satanic papal lie? If not, let's at least examine what you said about the EU:

The the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Daniel, Babylon, MP, Greece, and Rome, are all consecutive - as soon as soon as Babylon went down, MP arose; when MP went down, Greece arose, etc. Can you see that your interpretation - which has as the fulfillment of the Ten Horns the EU which arose over FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AFTER ROME FELL - is totally inconsistent with the consecutive rise and fall of the preceding empires of Daniel? "Consistency, thou art a jewel". If we don't maintain interpretive consistency, we can make Bible prophecy say whatever we want.

Ten "barbarian" Horns which arose when Rome fell:
Anglo Saxons = England
Francs = France
Visigoths = Spain
Suevi = Portugal
Alemanni = Germany
Burgundians = Swiss
Lombards = Italy

Heruli = extinct
Vandals = extinct
Ostrogoths = extinct

Did you notice three of those tribes went extinct? Did you read where Daniel 7 said the Little Horn would arise among the Ten Horns and three of them would be "plucked up by their roots" by it? History confirms that when the papacy arose, it had those three horns destroyed and it went on to fulfill all the identifying marks of Antichrist in prophecy. The great Protestant Reformers paid good money to ensure you, me, and and the rest of posterity would always remember Historicism was the only truth they taught:

The German "Rathous" Sculptures

​

View attachment 28193

View attachment 28205


View attachment 28206

​

All that bunk brother.

 

[Phoneman777]

All that bunk brother.

You tryna say "debunk"?

Cause that's what Protestant Historicism does to Jesuit Futurism

 

[Randy Kluth]

You tryna say "debunk"?

Cause that's what Protestant Historicism does to Jesuit Futurism

Attributing Modern Futurism to "Jesuit Futurism" is itself disinformation. Futurism existed in the Early Church and in the book of Daniel when a future Antichrist was declared to be an individual ruler appropriating 10 states comprising a divided form of the Roman Empire.

The fact various Christian positions speculated the coming of Antichrist was taking place at various times and in various movements does not reflect negatively upon the idea of a future Antichrist--they were purely hypothetical. Seeing the Roman Empire as the beginning of this movement may indicate a form of historicism, along with the idea that a corrupted Catholic Church is a movement towards the rise of the False Prophet.

But they are not antithetical to Futurism. The proposal, by certain Catholic theologians, that various hypotheses were not yet the fulfillment of Antichrist and the False Prophet does not mean that they originated Dispensationalism or any other form of Modern Futurism. They simply recognized, rightly, that various speculations about this Futurist development did not yet satisfy the prophecies.

I see this kind of negative tactic all the time, in trying to dismiss legitimate Christian beliefs, by tying those beliefs to heretical or errant ideas held by people thought to be bad characters. There is no necessary alliance between heretical groups and doctrinally-orthodox groups simply because they agree on certain issues. Heretical groups often hold to some orthodox doctrines without associating with or originating those orthodox positions. Guilt by association, therefore, is an invalid tactic, and should be ignored as a conspiracy theory.

 

[Phoneman777]

Attributing Modern Futurism to "Jesuit Futurism" is itself disinformation. Futurism existed in the Early Church and in the book of Daniel when a future Antichrist was declared to be an individual ruler appropriating 10 states comprising a divided form of the Roman Empire

My friend, MODERN FUTURISM IS JESUIT FUTURISM!​

Jesuit Futurism denies prophetic fulfillment parallels history - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says prophetic fulfillment suspends at the end of Revelation 3 - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says prophetic fulfillment resumes following a "secret rapture" - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a 2,000 year "gap" separates Daniel's 69th and 70th Weeks - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Daniel's "prince" that comes with destruction is the Antichrist - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a rebuilt Jewish temple is pertinent to end times prophecy - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a "one evil man" Antichrist will sit enthroned in this temple - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism denies Antichrist's rise directly follows the fall of the Roman Empire - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says "7 or 3 1/2 years of tribulation" precedes the 2nd coming - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says the Antichrist will rule during this "7 years of tribulation" - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a "secret rapture" directly precedes Antichrist's 7 year rule - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Antichrist will broker a 7 year treaty between Arabs and Jews - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Antichrist breaks the treaty after 3 1/2 years - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Armageddon commences directly after the treaty is broken - NOT THE ECFs.
​

Can you please review the link below for the ECFs own statements
confirming all of the above?

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

​

 

[Randy Kluth]

My friend, MODERN FUTURISM IS JESUIT FUTURISM!​

Jesuit Futurism denies prophetic fulfillment parallels history - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says prophetic fulfillment suspends at the end of Revelation 3 - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says prophetic fulfillment resumes following a "secret rapture" - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a 2,000 year "gap" separates Daniel's 69th and 70th Weeks - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Daniel's "prince" that comes with destruction is the Antichrist - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a rebuilt Jewish temple is pertinent to end times prophecy - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism denies Antichrist's rise directly follows the fall of the Roman Empire - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a "one evil man" Antichrist will sit enthroned in this temple - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says "7" or "3 1/2" years of tribulation" precedes the 2nd coming - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says the Antichrist will rule during this "7 years of tribulation" - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says a "secret rapture" directly precedes Antichrist's 7 year rule - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Antichrist will broker a 7 year treaty between Arabs and Jews - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Antichrist breaks the treaty after 3 1/2 years - NOT THE ECFs.
Jesuit Futurism says Armageddon commences directly after the treaty is broken - NOT THE ECFs.
​

Can you please review the link below for the ECFs own statements
- not he said/she said -
confirming all of the above?

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

​

Yes, I will try to read your link and respond, in detail, to your question. But 1st, will you agree to respond to this one point: Do you realize that you are defining "Futurism" only in the Dispensationalist sense? I am a Futurist, but I am *not* a Dispensationalist!..........................

....................Okay, I've read your entire link, and I'm amazed at how much agreement I have with the author. However, I shouldn't be surprised because it is based, very much, on the beliefs expressed by the Church Fathers. And I get very many of my own beliefs from the Church Fathers.

You make a couple of assumptions, however, that I believe to be false.
1) You say Futurism discounts historical fulfillment of prophecy. That clearly is not true. One can believe that NT history is fulfilling history, while insisting that there is still coming a future Antichrist. Futurism does not deny historical fulfillments. Rather, it asserts a future Antichrist, a future Coming of Christ, a future Millennial Kingdom of Christ. Futurism does not require one to be a Dispensationalist. Nor does Dispensationalism deny all historical fulfillment of NT prophecy.

2) Your belief that Futurism denies historical fulfillment is based on the Gap Theory of the 70th Week of Daniel. I don't personally believe in the Gap Theory, but neither do I think the "Gap" means that prophecy is not being fulfilled during that "Gap." It only means that Dispensationalism puts Israel aside for 2000 years before returning to the Jewish People. In reality, that's precisely what Paul said, that Israel would be judged until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. I don't held precisely to this belief, but neither do I suggest that it therefore opposes NT fulfillment of biblical prophecy before the end of the age.

As I told you before, none of this is new to me personally. I'm aware of the beliefs of the Church Fathers on the Olivet Discourse, the 70 Weeks, the Restrainer, the Antichrist, etc. Most of my beliefs correspond to them, and I've been sharing these things for years. So I'm glad we're aligned on these things.

Where we're not aligned is on the idea that Historicism is the opposite of Futurism. Historicism generally sees things like Preterism, like past historical events exhausted future prophecy, that no more future prophecy needs to be fulfilled.

But I believe the Roman Empire, as well as the corrupted Catholic Church, have still been fulfilling prophecy, though their end has not yet been realized. This is a blend of historicism and futurism, which is what I claim to be.

I believe the Roman Empire was but the beginning of the 4th Kingdom of Daniel. And since, the Catholic Church did not exhaust the prophecy of the False Prophet, and European kings did not exhaust the prophecy of the Antichrist, Futurism must still be in play, which is belief that more is yet to be fulfilled in a final Antichrist.

Let me know what you think?

See my post in #972 HERE

 

[covenantee]

Yes, I will try to read your link and respond, in detail, to your question. But 1st, will you agree to respond to this one point: Do you realize that you are defining "Futurism" only in the Dispensationalist sense? I am a Futurist, but I am *not* a Dispensationalist!..........................

....................Okay, I've read your entire link, and I'm amazed at how much agreement I have with the author. However, I shouldn't be surprised because it is based, very much, on the beliefs expressed by the Church Fathers. And I get very many of my own beliefs from the Church Fathers.

You make a couple of assumptions, however, that I believe to be false.
1) You say Futurism discounts historical fulfillment of prophecy. That clearly is not true. One can believe that NT history is fulfilling history, while insisting that there is still coming a future Antichrist. Futurism does not deny historical fulfillments. Rather, it asserts a future Antichrist, a future Coming of Christ, a future Millennial Kingdom of Christ. Futurism does not require one to be a Dispensationalist. Nor does Dispensationalism deny all historical fulfillment of NT prophecy.

2) Your belief that Futurism denies historical fulfillment is based on the Gap Theory of the 70th Week of Daniel. I don't personally believe in the Gap Theory, but neither do I think the "Gap" means that prophecy is not being fulfilled during that "Gap." It only means that Dispensationalism puts Israel aside for 2000 years before returning to the Jewish People. In reality, that's precisely what Paul said, that Israel would be judged until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. I don't held precisely to this belief, but neither do I suggest that it therefore opposes NT fulfillment of biblical prophecy before the end of the age.

As I told you before, none of this is new to me personally. I'm aware of the beliefs of the Church Fathers on the Olivet Discourse, the 70 Weeks, the Restrainer, the Antichrist, etc. Most of my beliefs correspond to them, and I've been sharing these things for years. So I'm glad we're aligned on these things.

Where we're not aligned is on the idea that Historicism is the opposite of Futurism. Historicism generally sees things like Preterism, like past historical events exhausted future prophecy, that no more future prophecy needs to be fulfilled.

But I believe the Roman Empire, as well as the corrupted Catholic Church, have still been fulfilling prophecy, though their end has not yet been realized. This is a blend of historicism and futurism, which is what I claim to be.

I believe the Roman Empire was but the beginning of the 4th Kingdom of Daniel. And since, the Catholic Church did not exhaust the prophecy of the False Prophet, and European kings did not exhaust the prophecy of the Antichrist, Futurism must still be in play, which is belief that more is yet to be fulfilled in a final Antichrist.

Let me know what you think?

See my post in #972 HERE

Reformation Historicism accurately recognized the apostate papacy as the predominant antichrist of its era, fulfilling the associated prophecies in Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation; and the expectations of the ECFs. This recognition was a foundational doctrine of the Reformation. The Jesuit counter-reformation was the attempt to sabotage the Reformation doctrine, and the Reformation itself, by instead spawning a counterfeit dogma positing a future antichrist to appear at the end of time. This attempt failed for more than two centuries, but today has exceeded all of its expectations, through the embrace of Jesuit futurism by dispensational futurism, and the betrayal, denial, and abandonment of Reformation prophetic truth.

There was no futurism regarding antichrist to be found among the Reformers. They recognized that the future had arrived, and acted upon it. We today are the beneficiaries of their faith, vision, and sacrifice.

Their recognition, and that of all Reformation Historicists, is as accurate and valid today as it was then.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yes, I will try to read your link and respond, in detail, to your question. But 1st, will you agree to respond to this one point: Do you realize that you are defining "Futurism" only in the Dispensationalist sense? I am a Futurist, but I am *not* a Dispensationalist!..........................

....................Okay, I've read your entire link, and I'm amazed at how much agreement I have with the author. However, I shouldn't be surprised because it is based, very much, on the beliefs expressed by the Church Fathers. And I get very many of my own beliefs from the Church Fathers.

Thank you. Hopefully, now you see that the only thing modern Futurism has in common with what the ECFs believed is that an Antichrist would at some point arise in the future. They knew there was more to the phrase "man of sin" than just a single man, seeing that they believed the same was synonymous with the "little horn" of Daniel, where "horns" are representative of "kingdoms" without no man can rule as king.

You make a couple of assumptions, however, that I believe to be false.
1) You say Futurism discounts historical fulfillment of prophecy. That clearly is not true.

My apologies for being too vague, friend.

What I mean is Jesuit Futurism denies prophetic fulfillment parallels history - by their teaching that prophecy stops fulfilling with Revelation 3 early on and doesn't resume fulfillment of chapters 4 - 22 until just before Jesus comes.

Point 3 of the link confirms the ECFs believed prophecy parallels history, the very definition of Historicism.

2) Your belief that Futurism denies historical fulfillment is based on the Gap Theory of the 70th Week of Daniel.

No, it's based on their teaching that prophecy stops fulfilling with Revelation 3 early on and doesn't resume fulfillment of chapters 4 - 22 until just before Jesus comes.

It only means that Dispensationalism puts Israel aside for 2000 years before returning to the Jewish People. In reality, that's precisely what Paul said, that Israel would be judged until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

If I remember correctly, we're debating whether "modern" Futurism can be traced back before the 15th century Jesuit Counter-Reformation.

So far, I've shown you that everything about "modern" Futurism originated with the Jesuits (except the "secret rapture" which came later with Dispensationlist Darby).

Where we're not aligned is on the idea that Historicism is the opposite of Futurism.

How can they not be polar opposites when the one claims to parallel history while the other claims to suspend at Revelation 3 and not resume until the last 7 years of Earth's history?

Historicism generally sees things like Preterism, like past historical events exhausted future prophecy, that no more future prophecy needs to be fulfilled.

No, Jesuit Preterism claims all prophecies met their fulfillment in the first century and is just as wrong as Jesuit Futurism's claim that almost all prophecy fulfills during the last 7 years of Earth's history.

Historicism has no resemblance to Jesuit Preterism whatsoever except those prophecies it claims fulfilled in the 1st century because prophecy parallels history.

But I believe the Roman Empire, as well as the corrupted Catholic Church, have still been fulfilling prophecy, though their end has not yet been realized. This is a blend of historicism and futurism, which is what I claim to be.

You're absolutely correct that the catholic church is continuing to fulfill prophecy, but in case no one ever told you, Rome fell in 476 A.D.

Again, we're not debating what belief system is right, but whether "modern" Futurism can be traced back before the Jesuits. I'm happy to discuss other stuff after we're done fleshing this out.

I believe the Roman Empire was but the beginning of the 4th Kingdom of Daniel. And since, the Catholic Church did not exhaust the prophecy of the False Prophet, and European kings did not exhaust the prophecy of the Antichrist, Futurism must still be in play, which is belief that more is yet to be fulfilled in a final Antichrist.
"
Let me know what you think?

See my post in #972 HERE

I'm happy to talk on all of that, but first we must ask "Is 'modern' Futurism found written by anyone in church history before the Counter-Reformation?"

If not, please agree with me that "modern" Futurism did not exist in the world until the Jesuits thunk it up -- not so I can say "I told you so" which is pathetically juvenile, but because too often we convince ourselves something is true based on misconceptions, so it's important that we first get straight what the authorities said before we make the mistake of placing what we presume they said as "evidence" for our position on the scale of truth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Reformation Historicism accurately recognized the apostate papacy as the predominant antichrist of its era, fulfilling the associated prophecies in Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation; and the expectations of the ECFs. This recognition was a foundational doctrine of the Reformation. The Jesuit counter-reformation was the attempt to sabotage the Reformation doctrine, and the Reformation itself, by instead spawning a counterfeit dogma positing a future antichrist to appear at the end of time. This attempt failed for more than two centuries, but today has exceeded all of its expectations, through the embrace of Jesuit futurism by dispensational futurism, and the betrayal, denial, and abandonment of Reformation prophetic truth.

There was no futurism regarding antichrist to be found among the Reformers. They recognized that the future had arrived, and acted upon it. We today are the beneficiaries of their faith, vision, and sacrifice.

Their recognition, and that of all Reformation Historicists, is as accurate and valid today as it was then.

I've never studied detail of the Reformers' eschatology--I just know they were Historicists in the sense they interpreted the history of the Catholic Church as evolving, in their time, into the Antichrist movement. They may not have believed so much in a literal Antichrist as a movement in which the Catholic Church corroded and became, at some point, the Antichrist.

If they were simply seeing the corrupted Catholic Church as merely a predecessor, then obviously in a sense they were still Futurists, as I am. I also see the corrupted Catholic Church as in part Antichristian, though I do not write off the entire Catholic Church as the Antichrist. Obviously, if the Reformers saw, at one time, the Catholic Church as legitimately Christian, then in a sense they had to be Futurists, believing that the Catholic Church at some point would become corrupt and vile.

The Apostle John saw the beginning of the era of Antichrists as starting in his own time, in the Roman Empire. And I agree, so that I would be, in that sense at least partly Historicist. But the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers also believed in a future Antichrist, which would then make them a blend of Historicist and Futurist as I myself am. They actually believed in a literal Antichrist, and not strictly an Antichrist *movement.*

Again, Daniel portrayed the entire NT era as a development towards the rise of the Antichristian Kingdom, beginning with the Roman Empire, the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7. This laid the groundwork towards both Historicist and Futurist belief in the NT era--in fact, throughout the entire NT era!

So what I'm saying is that the prophecy of Antichrist has always invited a blend of Historicism and Futurism. It would start in the ancient Roman Empire, and then at some point corrupt the European Church after it had become Christianized, which we call the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not personally believe the RCC is the Antichrist, though at times it certainly did act like an Antichrist. But it is part of the entire movement that began with the ancient Roman Empire, evolving into a corrupt form of Christianity in Europe.

And I believe there will be, at some point, a literal "Man of Sin" who becomes ruler over 10 of the states of Europe. This is a blend of Historicism and Futurism, and takes into consideration the Reformers' view that a corrupt Catholic Church is at the least a part of the unfolding of the Antichrist revelation.

I just happen to think of the RCC as a predecessor of Antichrist at the times of its worst corruptions. I do not equate the RCC with the Antichrist, as the Reformers apparently did.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thank you. Hopefully, now you see that the only thing modern Futurism has in common with what the ECFs believed is that an Antichrist would at some point arise in the future. They knew there was more to the phrase "man of sin" than just a single man, seeing that they believed the same was synonymous with the "little horn" of Daniel, where "horns" are representative of "kingdoms" without no man can rule as king.

Yes, having been raised in Reformation Theology from birth I've long known that the Reformers had a dim view of the RCC, to say the least! I just didn't know if they saw the Antichrist strictly as a "movement" or as an "individual?"

It seems that they saw Antichrist more as a movement, the RCC, rather than an individual pope. But accepting, as they did, the RCC as a legitimate father to European Christianity they had to believe that at some point the RCC turned into an apostate movement, comprising "the Antichrist?"

As such, they had to have some sense of "Futurism," in which the Early Church was not yet the Antichrist? They may, however, simply felt that the ancient Roman Empire was the initial Antichrist, and passed off its heritage to the RCC after Rome was Christianized. However, that seems like a contradiction to me, to say that Christian Rome was the Antichrist in the Early Church?

My apologies for being too vague, friend.

What I mean is Jesuit Futurism denies prophetic fulfillment parallels history - by their teaching that prophecy stops fulfilling with Revelation 3 early on and doesn't resume fulfillment of chapters 4 - 22 until just before Jesus comes.

Yea, we do have a lot of beliefs in common. I attribute that to my Reformation background, and also to my respect for the Early Church Fathers. Our disagreement is based on the definition of "Futurism," which is a legitimate question.

Much of modern Futurism seems to lean towards Dispensationalist beliefs. And I don't agree with some of that. However, the fact that Dispensationalists reject the idea of Antichrist as a "movement" beginning in the past only means they agree with that Jesuit belief--not that they agree with Jesuits overall. They similarly believe in a literal Antichrist *individual* in the future. But that does not mean they accept the RCC as pure and undefiled in many other ways.

No, I believe the Early Church taught an individual Antichrist. So it can't be said that this belief came from the Jesuits--only that the Jesuits may have helped revive the ancient belief in an individual Antichrist.

Point 3 of the link confirms the ECFs believed prophecy parallels history, the very definition of Historicism.

No, it's based on their teaching that prophecy stops fulfilling with Revelation 3 early on and doesn't resume fulfillment of chapters 4 - 22 until just before Jesus comes.

Yes, that's Dispensationalism, which I also reject. I do agree with them in their belief in the future salvation of national Israel. In the present age, that hasn't been happening.

But I believe individual salvation is as valid for Jews today as it is for other ethnicities. It's just that nations go through phases--they rise and fall. Israel's fall cannot be fixed until Christ comes back, in my view. That Israel will be fixed, by judgment, is part of my Futurist belief.

If I remember correctly, we're debating whether "modern" Futurism can be traced back before the 15th century Jesuit Counter-Reformation.

So far, I've shown you that everything about "modern" Futurism originated with the Jesuits (except the "secret rapture" which came later with Dispensationlist Darby).

Again, the Jesuits simply revived traditional Christian eschatology in the Early Church. They cannot be credited with the theology that preceded them. At best, they can only be credited with denying the Reformation belief that the Antichrist is strictly a *movement,* and not an *individual.*

The modern Futurist belief that Antichrist will be an *individual* did not then originate with the Jesuits. At best they contributed to a return to original Futurism in this regard. That the Early Church believed in an *individual* Antichrist is beyond dispute, in my view.

How can they not be polar opposites when the one claims to parallel history while the other claims to suspend at Revelation 3 and not resume until the last 7 years of Earth's history?

I do agree that it is important to have this "parallel history," as you call it. I believe the history of Antichrist began in ancient pagan Rome, the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7. But it began as a monolithic empire, dividing into two parts, East and West. This powerful monolithic government did not allow Antichrist to rise, and was the Restrainer, of 2 Thes 2. Only when the Roman Empire had Christianized and had broken up into at least 10 states could Antichrist arise and rebuild the ancient pagan Roman Empire.

I agree with the Early Church Fathers that the Roman Empire was the Restrainer. But I also agree with the Dispensationalists, in a sense, that the work of the Holy Spirit was also restraining the rise of Antichrist, until the European world could be evangelized.

The Christianization of the Roman Empire perpetuated the very Roman unity that prevented the rise of Antichrist. But as the RCC broke down, Europe began its period of division, leading to the rise of modern Antichristianity.

I would say, however, that Protestantism is victim to the age of apostasy as much as Roman Catholicism has been! Liberal Protestant Theology is terribly corrupt!

Inasmuch as I believe in a literal 3.5 year period of rule by an individual Antichrist, I depart from what you're calling "parallel history." At some point it becomes Futurism, the realization of literal prophecies given in Dan 7 and in the book of Revelation. Perhaps that's where we separate company?

You're absolutely correct that the catholic church is continuing to fulfill prophecy, but in case no one ever told you, Rome fell in 476 A.D.

I've repeated that fact for many years. I do know world and European history, and have known this for the bulk of my life, yes. In fact, in the early 70s I read a series of pamphlets written by Gordon Lindsay, who identified the two halves of the ancient Roman Empire as the 2 legs of iron in Dan 2. He explained how after the fall of Rome in 476 AD the Holy Roman Empire emerged to maintain continuity from ancient Rome to modern Rome. So I've known these things for about 50 years brother!

Again, we're not debating what belief system is right, but whether "modern" Futurism can be traced back before the Jesuits. I'm happy to discuss other stuff after we're done fleshing this out.

I'm happy to talk on all of that, but first we must ask "Is 'modern' Futurism found written by anyone in church history before the Counter-Reformation?"

If not, please agree with me that "modern" Futurism did not exist in the world until the Jesuits thunk it up -- not so I can say "I told you so" which is pathetically juvenile, but because too often we convince ourselves something is true based on misconceptions, so it's important that we first get straight what the authorities said before we make the mistake of placing what we presume they said as "evidence" for our position on the scale of truth.

Thank you. Hopefully, now you see that the only thing modern Futurism has in common with what the ECFs believed is that an Antichrist would at some point arise in the future.

There is more Futurism to the Early Church Fathers than just belief in an individual Antichrist. They also believed that Rome would break up into 10 states that would eventually become the European base for Antichrist. They certainly did not believe that the RCC was the Antichrist!

 

[Phoneman777]

There is more Futurism to the Early Church Fathers than just belief in an individual Antichrist. They also believed that Rome would break up into 10 states that would eventually become the European base for Antichrist. They certainly did not believe that the RCC was the Antichrist!

Here is an excerpt from a Futurist interpretation I found at Bible.org:

"The endless explanation of critical scholars attempting to find these ten kings in the history of the Grecian Empire or to find them later in Rome, by their very disagreement among themselves demonstrate the impossibility of satisfactorily explaining this verse as past history. If the ten kings are in power at the end of the age, which also seems to be supported by the ten kings of Revelation 13:1; 17:12, it follows that they must be still future."​

​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here is an excerpt from a Futurist interpretation I found at Bible.org:

"The endless explanation of critical scholars attempting to find these ten kings in the history of the Grecian Empire or to find them later in Rome, by their very disagreement among themselves demonstrate the impossibility of satisfactorily explaining this verse as past history. If the ten kings are in power at the end of the age, which also seems to be supported by the ten kings of Revelation 13:1; 17:12, it follows that they must be still future."​

​

Yea, that's the entire point I was making, that elements of Futurism has been in those who interpreted the book of Revelation historically, from the Early Church Fathers to the Reformation Theologians. They all looked at their own time, as well as into how things in their own time would develop in the future.

That is precisely how I myself view it. The book of Revelation began its fulfillment in the ancient Roman Empire, and proceeded to develop into the Holy Roman Empire. The Middle Ages and later saw a backwards movement in the Roman Catholic Church, which I believe sets the stage for a future corrupt Pope who will be the False Prophet. But for me it's a lot of speculation, combined with what Dan 7 says.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yea, that's the entire point I was making, that elements of Futurism has been in those who interpreted the book of Revelation historically, from the Early Church Fathers to the Reformation Theologians. They all looked at their own time, as well as into how things in their own time would develop in the future.

That is precisely how I myself view it. The book of Revelation began its fulfillment in the ancient Roman Empire, and proceeded to develop into the Holy Roman Empire. The Middle Ages and later saw a backwards movement in the Roman Catholic Church, which I believe sets the stage for a future corrupt Pope who will be the False Prophet. But for me it's a lot of speculation, combined with what Dan 7 says.

I was responding to what you said about the ECFs having a common belief with modern Futurists about the Ten Horns. The ECFs believed they would follow directly after the 4th kingdom, but modern Futurists say this "ten nation confederacy" is still future. While I also believe it's a dual fulfillment when one considers the "Club of Rome" secret society, only true Protestant Historicism always acknowledges the rise of the Ten Barbarian tribes out of Rome as a fulfillment, as well, unlike modern Futurism.

I think that puts us back to square one - that the ECFs held only one common belief with modern Futurists: a future rise of the Antichrist

 

[yokefellow]

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.​

​

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2​

​

Just as all who are holy are "in Christ", all who have sinned were in Adam--one man. And just as the falling away came to Adam, it must also come to the Last man, whom is Christ including those before and also those after His coming...this is why Jesus is rightly called "the Last Adam." "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual."

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (KJV)

Greetings, Scott. This is my understanding:

The topic being discussed here is the return of Jesus Christ and our gathering back to Him. Very specifically, Paul tells us in verse 3 that TWO THINGS must happen BEFORE we gather back to Jesus Christ. What are those two things?

1. There must first come a falling away.

2. The "man of sin,” who is the "son of perdition,” must be revealed.