Who Is "the Restrainer" In 2 Thess. 2:6-7

[ewq1938]

6 Obama (The one (who is) now) - his blasphemy is calling the Haiti earthquake a (Cruel act) Who would say that to God,s face?
7 Biden (Takes over shortly- something happens to Obama does not finish his 2nd term)
8 Trump - The final beast with Reagan's spirit up from the abyss possesing him

Well, Obama completed his second term and Biden did not at the time act as President and Trump certainly isn't the antichrist or the final beast.

All of this post was nonsense.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Wait, you've abandoned the RCC but you're not a "protestant"? How's that possible? "Protestantism" at its core means "protest against the teachings of the RCC".

To split even finer hairs, the only true "protestant" recognized by the RCC is my denomination. From the RCC itself:

"Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of the one or the other of the two alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."​

Your reasoning is interesting.
I take it you're a seventh day adventist or something along those lines. If that's actually the case, then you're simply ignoring the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is our Sabbath rest, not some day of the week. The implication is that the born again in Christ are to keep every day Holy, not just a Saurday or Sunday. It must be wonderful to only have one day to pretend to be righteous and six to do every thing the evil imagination of man desires.
Have a nice life.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Well, Obama completed his second term and Biden did not at the time act as President and Trump certainly isn't the antichrist or the final beast.

All of this post was nonsense.

Since the context of the Revelation of our Lord is entirely through the nation of Israel, why should we think that the revelation of the Antichrist would be through the gentiles?
God did send prophets to the Gentile nations and Daniel gives us broad prophetic events regarding world history, but even they are given in context of the Holy land and holy people.

"Replacement theology" gives us the idea that future prophetic fulfillment revolves around the church, but such understanding forces us to ignore or spiritualize dozens of passages that apply to Israel and Jerusalem as the seat of Israel's authority.

I'm actually inclined to believe that the Antichrist will be a physical descendent of David, lending authority to his claims, but a secular man who rejects the God of his fathers.

David's bloodline came under a curse because of his adultery and planned forfeit of the life of Uriah the Hittite, the legitimate husband of Bathsheba,
10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 2 Samuel 12:10

David experienced this curse firsthand when his beloved son Absalom usurped the kingdom and paid for it with his own blood, but not before murdering some of his own brothers.
It would seem likely that another of David's bloodline would seek to usurp the authority of Christ, "the Son of David" by murdering some of the saints, the body of Christ.
I don't know if scripture supplies more support for this notion, but I know that some saints see the same hints in scripture, some even in the life of Solomon (in his apostasy.)

 

[Phoneman777]

Your reasoning is interesting.
I take it you're a seventh day adventist or something along those lines. If that's actually the case, then you're simply ignoring the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is our Sabbath rest, not some day of the week. The implication is that the born again in Christ are to keep every day Holy, not just a Saurday or Sunday. It must be wonderful to only have one day to pretend to be righteous and six to do every thing the evil imagination of man desires.
Have a nice life.

You do realize that Hebrews 4:9-10 says the opposite of what you say, right?

"It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath. For he that has entered into His rest, he has ceased from his own works, as God did from His." Hebrews 4:9 (Lamsa) Peshitta​

Yes, right there in our NT is the weekly Sabbath commandment enjoined to the church, but popularly translated as "rest" though the word "Sabbatismos" most certainly does not refer to the same "kataposis" rest of the previous 8 verses in the passage - but after over 1,000 years of imposed papal Sunday sacredness, the Protestant translators couldn't bring themselves to properly render the word as "Sabbath".

That's why the RCC recognizes only the Seventh-day Adventist church as "the only consistent Protestant" -- because we reject the authority of the RCC to "think to change times and laws" while the rest of "protestant" Christianity "bows down in reverent obedience to the Roman Catholic Church" (yes, the RCC says that about you - they seem to think you've not abandoned them at all).

 

[michaelvpardo]

You do realize that Hebrews 4:9-10 says the opposite of what you say, right?

"It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath. For he that has entered into His rest, he has ceased from his own works, as God did from His." Hebrews 4:9 (Lamsa) Peshitta​

Yes, right there in our NT is the weekly Sabbath commandment enjoined to the church, but popularly translated as "rest" though the word "Sabbatismos" most certainly does not refer to the same "kataposis" rest of the previous 8 verses in the passage - but after over 1,000 years of imposed papal Sunday sacredness, the Protestant translators couldn't bring themselves to properly render the word as "Sabbath".

That's why the RCC recognizes only the Seventh-day Adventist church as "the only consistent Protestant" -- because we reject the authority of the RCC to "think to change times and laws" while the rest of "protestant" Christianity "bows down in reverent obedience to the Roman Catholic Church" (yes, the RCC says that about you - they seem to think you've not abandoned them at all).

That isn't what Hebrews 4:9-10 is saying at all, but I can see how the carnal minded can yank this out of context to take advantage of the simple.

The entire book of Hebrews is about the superiority of Christ and His ministry to the Hebrew notion of righteousness through keeping of the law. The epistle was written to Jewish believers in God (the reason that its titled "Hebrews") to persuade them that righteousness is through faith in Christ and not through strict adherence to the law of Moses and even gives stern warning to the Jews who would reject Christ for their own self righteousness:

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:29

Hebrews 4:9-10 is precisely an admonition to enter God's rest through faith in Jesus Christ given to Sabbath keepers, and not as you spuriously claim, an instruction to Christians. What in the world would be the point of admonishing those who keep shabbat to keep shabbat? That's a logical absurdity.

But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. Galatians 4:9-11

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

You may believe in the Lord, but clearly, you haven't entered into His rest.

 

[Phoneman777]

That isn't what Hebrews 4:9-10 is saying at all, but I can see how the carnal minded can yank this out of context to take advantage of the simple.

The entire book of Hebrews is about the superiority of Christ and His ministry to the Hebrew notion of righteousness through keeping of the law. The epistle was written to Jewish believers in God (the reason that its titled "Hebrews") to persuade them that righteousness is through faith in Christ and not through strict adherence to the law of Moses and even gives stern warning to the Jews who would reject Christ for their own self righteousness:

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:29

Hebrews 4:9-10 is precisely an admonition to enter God's rest through faith in Jesus Christ given to Sabbath keepers, and not as you spuriously claim, an instruction to Christians. What in the world would be the point of admonishing those who keep shabbat to keep shabbat? That's a logical absurdity.

But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. Galatians 4:9-11

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

You may believe in the Lord, but clearly, you haven't entered into His rest.

One thing I've noticed about antinomians is they cannot discern the difference between "Christian Origination" and "Christian Obligation".

Everyone knows about the origin of Christian life: "For ye are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."

But when it comes to "Christian Obligation", well, that's like pouring cold water on someone's head. It's called "Reasonable service" or "All that your heavenly Father hath commanded you to do" or "the whole duty of man", right?

They are not the Ten Suggestions. Surely, you don't find the Ten Commandments "grievous"?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thank you for acknowledging history, which some here seem unwilling to do. If I may impart to you Protestant Historicism's take on the issue:

It was universally understood among Protestants that the Restrainer was the Pagan Roman Empire which prevented the rise of the Papal Antichrist, because while the Caesars occupied the throne, the "man of sin" Papacy could not have ascended to supreme power. The reason, obviously, Paul refused to put down on paper what he claimed to have previously told the Thessalonians in person about the identity of the Restrainer was that if such a letter speaking about Pagan Rome being taken out of the way and the man of sin being revealed were to fall into the hands of the Roman authorities, Christianity would have been condemned as insurrectionist and swiftly wiped out before the ink had time to dry. So, he simply referred to Rome as "the Restrainer".

I've argued the same, and I agree. I've gone further to show that Jesus, Paul, and John all used tactics that tried to minimize direct references to the paganism of Rome so as to keep open an evangelical pathway to the Gentile world. It was both to discourage zealotry as well as to become "like them to win them," ie to keep the door open by remaining "friendly."

Jesus said to "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." Paul encouraged submission to the government authorities. And John, in the book of Revelation, used a cryptological approach to identifying Rome as the "Great Harlot." And so yes, in 2 Thes 2 Paul is minimizing any direct reference to Rome in the part she is playing as the "4th Kingdom" of Dan 2 and 7. That would identify her as resistant to God's Kingdom, while she accepts the Gospel and temporarily restrains the arrival of Antichrist.

I also think that Daniel argued for a breakup of Rome, the 4th Kingdom, into 10 parts before Antichrist can come. So he cannot come, Paul argued, until it is time for him to come, as Daniel shows us. And it will not actually come until Christ comes from the sky to destroy him. This precludes any so-called eschatological Christian movements in the present age claiming to be Christ's "2nd Coming."

I don't want to get too critical of genuine Christianity at this point. But it cannot be denied that Postmillennialists sort of have this view that the 2nd Coming is gradually coming in the present. And that is false. The Kingdom Now movement tends to emphasize the power of the Church to command the current coming of the Kingdom. This also is false. We cannot cast out Satan from the earth, even if in individual cases of salvation we can cast out demons. Some elements of "power evangelism" I reject. But some I can agree with, namely the spiritual gifts.

After the fall of Rome in 476 A.D. and the "seat of the Caesars" was vacated, the 10 resulting barbarian tribes which divided up the Roman fourth beast fought incessantly amongst each other until it was clear that the only solution was to have a common ruler preside over them...enter the papal PONTIFEX MAXIMUS - the "divine bridge builder" between heaven and earth - the same name used by the "divine" caesars was adopted by the newly crowned "divine" Pope who is "Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh". Even secular authorities recognized this, with people like Thomas Hobbes writing, "The Papacy is not other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof."

Yes, but Hobbes is as bad as any corrupt Pope ever was! Not that I read much of him, but he was, as I understood him, the original Western religious skeptic!

Thus, the when the Restrainer was taken out of the way the "man of sin" papal Antichrist ascended in 538 A.D. and began the 1,260 prophetic days (literal years) of tyranny.

This is where we part company, sadly, because there's a ton of things I agree with you on. I don't believe the rise of the Roman patriarchate in the West, the Pope, was evil. But absolute power does corrupt absolutely, and the seeds to destruction were certainly sown at that time.

The Catholic Church managed to keep Christianity moving forward and progressing into all of Europe, and for that I'm thankful. I'm also thankful for the Reformation brought on by the Protestants to disestablish calcified, religious Christianity so that there would be less bringing people to the Pope and more bringing people to Christ!

The Holy Roman Empire, as imperfect as it was, did serve a purpose. And I'm grateful to God that Roman Christianity continued, despite the fact it continued to have within it the "4th Beast" that resists the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

 

[Phoneman777]

I've argued the same, and I agree. I've gone further to show that Jesus, Paul, and John all used tactics that tried to minimize direct references to the paganism of Rome so as to keep open an evangelical pathway to the Gentile world. It was both to discourage zealotry as well as to become "like them to win them," ie to keep the door open by remaining "friendly."

Jesus said to "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." Paul encouraged submission to the government authorities. And John, in the book of Revelation, used a cryptological approach to identifying Rome as the "Great Harlot." And so yes, in 2 Thes 2 Paul is minimizing any direct reference to Rome in the part she is playing as the "4th Kingdom" of Dan 2 and 7. That would identify her as resistant to God's Kingdom, while she accepts the Gospel and temporarily restrains the arrival of Antichrist.

I also think that Daniel argued for a breakup of Rome, the 4th Kingdom, into 10 parts before Antichrist can come. So he cannot come, Paul argued, until it is time for him to come, as Daniel shows us. And it will not actually come until Christ comes from the sky to destroy him. This precludes any so-called eschatological Christian movements in the present age claiming to be Christ's "2nd Coming."

I don't want to get too critical of genuine Christianity at this point. But it cannot be denied that Postmillennialists sort of have this view that the 2nd Coming is gradually coming in the present. And that is false. The Kingdom Now movement tends to emphasize the power of the Church to command the current coming of the Kingdom. This also is false. We cannot cast out Satan from the earth, even if in individual cases of salvation we can cast out demons. Some elements of "power evangelism" I reject. But some I can agree with, namely the spiritual gifts.



Yes, but Hobbes is as bad as any corrupt Pope ever was! Not that I read much of him, but he was, as I understood him, the original Western religious skeptic!



This is where we part company, sadly, because there's a ton of things I agree with you on. I don't believe the rise of the Roman patriarchate in the West, the Pope, was evil. But absolute power does corrupt absolutely, and the seeds to destruction were certainly sown at that time.

The Catholic Church managed to keep Christianity moving forward and progressing into all of Europe, and for that I'm thankful. I'm also thankful for the Reformation brought on by the Protestants to disestablish calcified, religious Christianity so that there would be less bringing people to the Pope and more bringing people to Christ!

The Holy Roman Empire, as imperfect as it was, did serve a purpose. And I'm grateful to God that Roman Christianity continued, despite the fact it continued to have within it the "4th Beast" that resists the coming of Christ's Kingdom.

There's plenty of reasons to believe the Papacy is the Antichrist, so much so that the entire Protestant world held that belief and "saved by grace through faith alone" as the "Twin Pillars of the Protestant Reformation". Even Spurgeon said, "And as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise the question...the Popery in the church of Rome..." However, I must say I don't think Catholics are evil, but there's surely some sketchy stuff that goes on at the highest levels of Catholicism, enough of which I think more than suffices for identifying them as the prophesied Antichrist.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There's plenty of reasons to believe the Papacy is the Antichrist, so much so that the entire Protestant world held that belief and "saved by grace through faith alone" as the "Twin Pillars of the Protestant Reformation". Even Spurgeon said, "And as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise the question...the Popery in the church of Rome..." However, I must say I don't think Catholics are evil, but there's surely some sketchy stuff that goes on at the highest levels of Catholicism, enough of which I think more than suffices for identifying them as the prophesied Antichrist.

I agree that there are some Antichristian elements in "Popery." There were good and bad Popes. But over the centuries there has been a "calcification" of religion within the Roman Catholic Church. Its traditions became as important as Christian truth, which in effect turned Roman Christianity into a form of idolatry.

Hence, we have the Catholic claim to exclusivity in Christianity, which I think runs contrary to what both Jesus and Paul taught, that there is designed by God to be different flocks within Christianity, different "fields," etc. But I try not to get too anti-Catholic for the same reason that Jesus, Paul, and John did not get too anti-Roman in their language.

I know how Protestants viewed Catholicism as the Antichrist. And being a futurist, I think they only had a part of the picture. Antichrist will be, I think, an emperor over European Civilization, and specifically over 10 states with 7 political leaders.

The False Prophet, perhaps presiding over the 2 horns of the branches of the Old Roman Empire East and West, may indeed be a Pope. But until that actually happens I think it is counterproductive to call the Roman Church an Antichrist.

I don't fault the early Protestants for identifying the Catholic Pope as the Antichrist. At that time, the popes were so corrupt that they could be called that, as they attempted to murder Luther and any Protestant leader. But the Catholics had their own Reformation, and have been able to perpetuate that branch of Christianity in the world.

As I said, there are different "flocks," because Jesus recognized that the promise God made to Abraham was for "many nations"--not just Israel and not just the Catholic Church. These various church organizations roughly compare with the national governments under which they operate. The Catholic Church operated under the Holy Roman Empire, and thus operated as an international organization.

But as Catholicism receded, following the slow breakup of the Holy Roman Empire, State churches emerged, just as God promised to Abraham there would be "many nations." I like Kenneth Latourette's history of Christianity. He looks positively at all of the postive Christian movements, Catholic and Protestant, even though he himself was a Protestant. He who is not against us is for us. And many of those remain in the Catholic Church who are still "for us!"

 

[ewq1938]

I'm actually inclined to believe that the Antichrist will be a physical descendent of David, lending authority to his claims, but a secular man who rejects the God of his fathers.

Secular is impossible since he will claim to be a God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Secular is impossible since he will claim to be a God.

The truth is probably in the eye of the beholder. Some believe that Secular Humanism is, in fact, a religion. Call it a secular religion? It appears to me that he will be a Gentile, issuing out of the nations, just as Jesus issued out of Israel. Preliminary foreshadowings of Antichrist, like Antiochus 4 and the Roman political leaders, were Gentiles. But it is possible that this could be someone with a Jewish background--how can we know?

To claim one's Self is God is undoubtedly a religion of sorts. But it sure isn't conventional, historic religion. It is, as we've seen all through history, a case of self-deification. It's probably as religious as, say, Alexander the Great.

 

[ewq1938]

To claim one's Self is God is undoubtedly a religion of sorts. But it sure isn't conventional, historic religion.

Christ was God and he created a new religion. "rejecting the God of his fathers" means to not follow the religion of your ancestors. It does not mean he isn't religious. He could believe in a different religion or as I have said, made up his own religion with him as God.

 

[Guestman]

At 2 Thessalonians 2, the apostle Paul wrote that "we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an (so-called) inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things ?"(2 Thess 2:1-5; Note: the word "apostasy" is from the Greek verb aphistemi that means "stand away from", with the noun having the sense of "desertion; abandonment; rebellion")

Pagan Rome did not restrain apostasy, but rather it was a place where apostasy grew, not hindered. How many recognize that the "Holy Trinity" that the Catholic church espoused was absorbed from the trinity of pagan Rome, that of Jupiter (supreme god and protector of Rome), Juno (his consort) and Minerva (goddess presiding over handicrafts), that "formed the triad whose worship was the central cult of the Roman state" ?(2005 Microsoft Reference Library)

Note: the word "catholic" means "broad, wide-reaching, all-embracing", so that when the Catholic church came into existence near the end of the 4th century C.E. (or about 381 C.E. as Rome's official state religion under Roman Emperor Theodosius I who imposed Trinitarian "Christianity"), it embraced pagan Rome's teachings and practices, such as the Pontifex Maximus or Pontif, that was the "Supreme Priest" of the religions of Rome and in which Caesar Augustus became the first "Supreme Priest" or Pontifex Maximus in 12 B.C.E., and whereby the pope today is called "the Pontif ", so that Catholicism is "broad" and "wide-reaching" in acceptance of false teachings in order to draw in the people)

With adroit precision, French historian Henri Marrou (1904-1977 C.E.) wrote: “By the end of the reign of Theodosius (in 395 C.E.), Christianity, or to be more precise, orthodox Catholicism, became the official religion of the entire Roman world.”

Orthodox Catholicism had replaced true Christianity and had become a “part of the world.” This State religion was vastly different from the religion of Jesus’ early followers, to whom he said: “You are no part of the world.”(John 15:19)

What the apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Thessalonians in about 51 C.E. came to fruition at the end of the 4th century C.E., whereby total apostasy was now on full display with Catholicism, that later grew massively into Christendom, in which there came to be Catholics, Protestants, Episcopalians, Methodists, Church of Christ, Mormons, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., so that there are now some 41,000 different sects and denominations in it.

So, at 2 Thessalonians 2:6, he spoke of "what is acting as a restraint" to the uprising apostasy that was already at work within the Christian congregation, and whereby at Acts 20, Paul told the Ephesian elders: "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."(Acts 20:39)

From within the Christian congregation, "oppressive wolves will enter in among you and not treat the flock (of genuine Christians) with tenderness", these being the first ones that make up the "anti-christs", for the apostle John wrote: "Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour (before the Christian congregation is overrun with counterfeit Christians). They went out from us (or came from within the Christian congregation), but they were not of our sort (wanting to promote false or apostate ideas, twisting Scripture); for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort."(1 John 2:18, 19)

It was these "anti-christs" (that means "of or instead of Christ", supplanting true Christian teachings with their own "brand" of teaching and calling it "Christian") who became Catholicism that grew into a massive Christendom, that is so dominant today.

The apostles fought to stem the tide of the initial apostasy while in its infancy, but after their deaths, as Jesus stated in his illustration at Matthew 13:24-30, that "while men were sleeping, his (Jesus) enemy came and oversowed weeds (counterfeit Christians) in among the wheat (genuine Christians) and left".(Matt 13:25)

Only in these "final part of the days" (that began in 1914), has there been a restoration of true Christianity, as seen at Isaiah 2:2-4, that says: "In the final part of the days (or before this "world" is "crushed out of existence, Dan 2:44), the mountain (or governmental sovereignty) of the house of Jehovah (or true worship that is exercised through God's heavenly Kingdom) will become firmly established above the top of the mountains (or political governments), and it will be raised up above the hills, and to it all the nations will stream. And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths. ”For law will go out of (symbolic) Zion, and the word of Jehovah out of (symbolic) Jerusalem. He will render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Christ was God and he created a new religion. "rejecting the God of his fathers" means to not follow the religion of your ancestors. It does not mean he isn't religious. He could believe in a different religion or as I have said, made up his own religion with him as God.

You're probably referring to Dan 11.37--I don't believe that refers to the Antichrist. I believe that refers to Antiochus 4. So here we hear about Antichrist...

Dan 7.24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

This might be a good description we see of the culture wars that began, roughly, in the Enlightenment Period in Europe. Here in the US these "culture wars" are succeeding in replacing Christian values with Far Left values which indeed oppose conventional religion and change the "set times and laws."

Any way you look at it, it is a region focused on one man's self-deification. It certainly isn't any of the classic world religions. It wouldn't be either Judaism or Christianity. And being a European theater, it wouldn't be Islam either. All of the Asian religions would be excluded, as well. Satanism is too obvious.

 

[ewq1938]

You're probably referring to Dan 11.37

I refer to this:

2Th 2:3 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;
2Th 2:4 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.

 

[Randy Kluth]

At 2 Thessalonians 2, the apostle Paul wrote that "we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an (so-called) inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things ?"(2 Thess 2:1-5; Note: the word "apostasy" is from the Greek verb aphistemi that means "stand away from", with the noun having the sense of "desertion; abandonment; rebellion")

Pagan Rome did not restrain apostasy, but rather it was a place where apostasy grew, not hindered. How many recognize that the "Holy Trinity" that the Catholic church espoused was absorbed from the trinity of pagan Rome, that of Jupiter (supreme god and protector of Rome), Juno (his consort) and Minerva (goddess presiding over handicrafts), that "formed the triad whose worship was the central cult of the Roman state" ?(2005 Microsoft Reference Library)

Note: the word "catholic" means "broad, wide-reaching, all-embracing", so that when the Catholic church came into existence near the end of the 4th century C.E. (or about 381 C.E. as Rome's official state religion under Roman Emperor Theodosius I who imposed Trinitarian "Christianity"), it embraced pagan Rome's teachings and practices, such as the Pontifex Maximus or Pontif, that was the "Supreme Priest" of the religions of Rome and in which Caesar Augustus became the first "Supreme Priest" or Pontifex Maximus in 12 B.C.E., and whereby the pope today is called "the Pontif ", so that Catholicism is "broad" and "wide-reaching" in acceptance of false teachings in order to draw in the people)

With adroit precision, French historian Henri Marrou (1904-1977 C.E.) wrote: “By the end of the reign of Theodosius (in 395 C.E.), Christianity, or to be more precise, orthodox Catholicism, became the official religion of the entire Roman world.”

Orthodox Catholicism had replaced true Christianity and had become a “part of the world.” This State religion was vastly different from the religion of Jesus’ early followers, to whom he said: “You are no part of the world.”(John 15:19)

What the apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Thessalonians in about 51 C.E. came to fruition at the end of the 4th century C.E., whereby total apostasy was now on full display with Catholicism, that later grew massively into Christendom, in which there came to be Catholics, Protestants, Episcopalians, Methodists, Church of Christ, Mormons, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., so that there are now some 41,000 different sects and denominations in it.

So, at 2 Thessalonians 2:6, he spoke of "what is acting as a restraint" to the uprising apostasy that was already at work within the Christian congregation, and whereby at Acts 20, Paul told the Ephesian elders: "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."(Acts 20:39)

From within the Christian congregation, "oppressive wolves will enter in among you and not treat the flock (of genuine Christians) with tenderness", these being the first ones that make up the "anti-christs", for the apostle John wrote: "Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour (before the Christian congregation is overrun with counterfeit Christians). They went out from us (or came from within the Christian congregation), but they were not of our sort (wanting to promote false or apostate ideas, twisting Scripture); for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort."(1 John 2:18, 19)

It was these "anti-christs" (that means "of or instead of Christ", supplanting true Christian teachings with their own "brand" of teaching and calling it "Christian") who became Catholicism that grew into a massive Christendom, that is so dominant today.

The apostles fought to stem the tide of the initial apostasy while in its infancy, but after their deaths, as Jesus stated in his illustration at Matthew 13:24-30, that "while men were sleeping, his (Jesus) enemy came and oversowed weeds (counterfeit Christians) in among the wheat (genuine Christians) and left".(Matt 13:25)

Only in these "final part of the days" (that began in 1914), has there been a restoration of true Christianity, as seen at Isaiah 2:2-4, that says: "In the final part of the days (or before this "world" is "crushed out of existence, Dan 2:44), the mountain (or governmental sovereignty) of the house of Jehovah (or true worship that is exercised through God's heavenly Kingdom) will become firmly established above the top of the mountains (or political governments), and it will be raised up above the hills, and to it all the nations will stream. And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths. ”For law will go out of (symbolic) Zion, and the word of Jehovah out of (symbolic) Jerusalem. He will render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore."

This is the typical approach of the Christian cults who deny true, orthodox Christianity. Your date of 1914 may place you among the JWs, at least in sentiment.

The typical approach is to tear down the entire history of Christianity, beginning with State Christianity, which did have its beginning in the Roman Empire. Christianity tends to assume the form of the political government under which it operates. That is, this normally takes place when the government itself converts to Christianity. And I believe that's a good thing.

In the course of Christian movements there is always a tendency to be corrupted and diluted with pagan influences, resulting in a distorted view of State Christianity. But this should in no way cause us to discount all historical examples of Christianity, no more than we should discount all Catholics and all Popes due to the number of times they saw corruption.

The Roman Kingdom "restrained" the rise of Antichrist not because it was pure, but because Daniel predicted it would hold its place until broken up into 10 states. That is what "restrains" the rise of Antichrist, the fact his time is not yet and must follow further devolution of the Roman Empire.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I refer to this:

2Th 2:3 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;
2Th 2:4 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.

Yes, this is an example of self-deification, which is a defilement of the Jewish temple. I don't believe it refers to the actual temple of Herod, which was thrown down. But regardless, the temple here refers to the Jewish temple, which is Judaism. And in seating himself there, in place of God, and in contrast with the law governing temple worship, Antichrist deliberately defiles Jewish worship under the Law.

This is not Judaism, nor is it Christianity. Personally, I believe it refers to God's true temple in heaven, which became the only true temple after the temple of Herod was taken down. In placing himself in God's heavenly temple Paul is saying that Antichrist is deifying himself, positioning himself in the place of God on earth. In other words, Paul was not speaking of a temple literally, but of one metaphorically.

It is a religion, but it is not a conventional religious display, either of Judaism or of Christianity. People do not sit in the holy of holies and call themselves Deity, who according to the Jews is so holy that His name should not be uttered.

 

[Phoneman777]

I agree that there are some Antichristian elements in "Popery." There were good and bad Popes. But over the centuries there has been a "calcification" of religion within the Roman Catholic Church. Its traditions became as important as Christian truth, which in effect turned Roman Christianity into a form of idolatry.

Hence, we have the Catholic claim to exclusivity in Christianity, which I think runs contrary to what both Jesus and Paul taught, that there is designed by God to be different flocks within Christianity, different "fields," etc. But I try not to get too anti-Catholic for the same reason that Jesus, Paul, and John did not get too anti-Roman in their language.

I know how Protestants viewed Catholicism as the Antichrist. And being a futurist, I think they only had a part of the picture. Antichrist will be, I think, an emperor over European Civilization, and specifically over 10 states with 7 political leaders.

The False Prophet, perhaps presiding over the 2 horns of the branches of the Old Roman Empire East and West, may indeed be a Pope. But until that actually happens I think it is counterproductive to call the Roman Church an Antichrist.

I don't fault the early Protestants for identifying the Catholic Pope as the Antichrist. At that time, the popes were so corrupt that they could be called that, as they attempted to murder Luther and any Protestant leader. But the Catholics had their own Reformation, and have been able to perpetuate that branch of Christianity in the world.

As I said, there are different "flocks," because Jesus recognized that the promise God made to Abraham was for "many nations"--not just Israel and not just the Catholic Church. These various church organizations roughly compare with the national governments under which they operate. The Catholic Church operated under the Holy Roman Empire, and thus operated as an international organization.

But as Catholicism receded, following the slow breakup of the Holy Roman Empire, State churches emerged, just as God promised to Abraham there would be "many nations." I like Kenneth Latourette's history of Christianity. He looks positively at all of the postive Christian movements, Catholic and Protestant, even though he himself was a Protestant. He who is not against us is for us. And many of those remain in the Catholic Church who are still "for us!"

The Papacy claims to be the Antichrist. They have always claimed to stand in the stead of Christ, to be the dispensers of salvation (Who actually is Christ), to stand in the Judgment seat of Christ (which obviously belongs to Christ alone), to be as Divine as Christ (Who has "no other God beside" Him).

The Reformers had exhaustive reasons for believing why they did. It's amazing how united on this issue they were...for over 3 centuries.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, this is an example of self-deification, which is a defilement of the Jewish temple. I don't believe it refers to the actual temple of Herod, which was thrown down. But regardless, the temple here refers to the Jewish temple, which is Judaism. And in seating himself there, in place of God, and in contrast with the law governing temple worship, Antichrist deliberately defiles Jewish worship under the Law.

This is not Judaism, nor is it Christianity. Personally, I believe it refers to God's true temple in heaven, which became the only true temple after the temple of Herod was taken down. In placing himself in God's heavenly temple Paul is saying that Antichrist is deifying himself, positioning himself in the place of God on earth. In other words, Paul was not speaking of a temple literally, but of one metaphorically.

It is a religion, but it is not a conventional religious display, either of Judaism or of Christianity. People do not sit in the holy of holies and call themselves Deity, who according to the Jews is so holy that His name should not be uttered.

I was just showing that the antichrist will not be secular ie: non-religious.

 

[n2thelight]

There's plenty of reasons to believe the Papacy is the Antichrist, so much so that the entire Protestant world held that belief and "saved by grace through faith alone" as the "Twin Pillars of the Protestant Reformation". Even Spurgeon said, "And as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise the question...the Popery in the church of Rome..." However, I must say I don't think Catholics are evil, but there's surely some sketchy stuff that goes on at the highest levels of Catholicism, enough of which I think more than suffices for identifying them as the prophesied Antichrist.

Only satan can and will be the anti- Christ ,sure we have a lot of people with the spirit of anti-Christ in them,however they are not.
satan along with his angels will come to this earth from a different dimension ,they are super natural beings and we will see them up close and personal .