So then I suppose the apostles were wasting their time telling the early Christians about these things since they cannot be known or understood. And it is of no spiritual value to be warned in our hearts as to the nature of antichrist and his false modes of worship.
The Error and Danger of Premillenialism
- Thread starter Rescued
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eschatology
- Status
So then I suppose the apostles were wasting their time telling the early Christians about these things since they cannot be known or understood. And it is of no spiritual value to be warned in our hearts as to the nature of antichrist and his false modes of worship.
Brother, Christ's work did not begin with his first coming. His work is a continuum from the moment He promised to crush the head of the serpent through to Jesus' glorious return and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. The history of redemption is at the heart of a Biblical view of history. Eschatology is not some far off future event. It is the reality that God has chosen a people for himself that He will deliver through the trials of a fallen world that despises Christ and his bride, the church.
But doesn't the whole issue hinge on how we all read the Bible and what our hermeneutic is? Some hermeneutical approaches are unbiblical and so we can rule out the eschatological systems that stem from an unorthodox or a non-reformed hermeneutic.
Yes I understand this and accept it. I was merely referencing the period of time between Christ's first and second advent since this is the period of time under debate among Christians. In another post I mentioned how the whole of scripture is eschatological, which is what you are iterating here, and I would concur that this is at the heart of the matter. The fact that many want to reduce eschatology to a discussion of future events shows how the whole thing has been obscured by incorrect views, and that the main point is that God has chosen to save a people for Himself from the foundation of the world and the unfolding of this drama has been going on since the beginning. And that the consummation of the age is with the marriage of Christ to His bride the church. This is the end of all things and the intent of all history, that towards which history is directed by God. Amen brother I am in agreement.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Yes. That's exactly what I said.
Being on guard against Antichrist is important. What you have loudly asserted but not demonstrated is that the nature of the papacy was already evident in Paul's time.
You are committing the same method you accuse premils of doing. It's having Paul say, "Be on guard against an institution that won't manifest itself as evil until 600 AD (or 900 AD, depending on when we date the fall of the church).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Yeah, you still haven't grasped the hypothetical nature of the reductio. Of course amil doesn't lead to anti-semitism. And even if it did, that wouldn't logically refute it. It was a hypothetical reductio.
I lean premil but I am not 100% committed on it.
Brother your IQ is very high and I can see that. I feel ashamed to even be debating this with you. I admit that I have been about doing things as i read posts scattered around this thread, kind of wondering what order they were written in. Haha
Forgive me if I missed the point of your post.
Wretched Man
Puritan Board Freshman
I think we need to be careful about attempting to point out specific antichrists. As John noted in 1 John 2:18, "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."
A few verses later, "22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."
There does appear (from what I can discern) to be a consummate false prophet at the very end of the age who aids the beast. This is often considered to be 'the antichrist', but there appear to be many (well before the Roman Catholic Church).
If you look up Pilgrims Covenant Church in Wisconsin and listen to their pastor's 16 part series on the papal antichrist you might find it well answers these questions.
Paul gave a great description of the man of sin to the Thessalonians. And he spoke of why at that time, he was unable to be revealed, the "he" that prevented the antichrist from rising to power was at the time, imperial Rome or the emperor. When viewing 2000 year old prophecies we must look to history to see if they have been fulfilled in any way. The amil historicist sees prophecy as some having been already fulfilled, some being fulfilled and some to be fulfilled in the future. Christians can look back at history and see documentation of the fulfillment of prophecy and it strengthens our faith. The immediate context of Paul in this matter is similar to all the apostolic warnings to be ready for Christ's coming in the clouds for Judgment. Paul believed it could have been in his own lifetime and yet it wouldn't be until thousands of years later. Paul did not know the exact date of the fall of the Roman empire, but he warned about what would arise from its ashes, a beast more deadly than all others before it. Deadly to the souls of men.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't think that the antichrist will be either the papacy as an institution or any specific pope in particular. Nor do I think it will be the Roman Catholic Church per se.
From what little we're told in Scripture, it seems that the antichrist (and his system) will be something much more fierce and devastatingly destructive than any pope has been or could be, and some sort of evil much bigger than the Roman Catholic Church.
Not so at all. The papacy has a documented history of hundreds and hundreds of dark, long years of murder and persecution of the saints. You're burying the obvious and trying to make the scriptures say more than they really do. Even if it says he makes all that dwell on the earth to worship him, it does not have to refer to every man, woman boy and girl including the Native Americans who lived on North America. In John's time the world was the known world. Anyway, no the antichrist is an office, like the president is an office. It is the head of the anti church. The scriptures did not warn of an atheistic, secular ruler, but that antichrist would be a Christian apostate, exalting himself above all that is called God. He seeks to oppose Christ by saying he is for Christ, and by supplanting his office.
So futurists can talk about microchips in the forehead and a rebuilt Jewish temple all they want. I will gladly stick with the interpretations of the historic Protestants, the Waldensies, Hugenots and other faithful Christians martyred and persecuted by the beast. The history and fulfillment of it are evident. But perhaps there lies ahead of us one final rising of this papal beast in our modern age where he will once again wield both the spiritual and carnal sword, and then we will see who among us is faithful to the Lamb and not in secret alliegance to the false church.
Last edited:
John said, "they went out from us..." I John 2:19 and that there were many in his day who went out from the church, drawing disciples after themselves, openly denying that Jesus was the Christ. Paul also said that shortly after his departure, grievous wolves would come in among them. But these false teachers were mere dwarves compared to the giant who would stand up among them centuries later. The Antichrist couldn't fully rise to power until the fall of the civil Roman empire. In I Thessalonians 2 Paul speaks of this, that the the man of sin had to be revealed, who opposes God and exalts himself above God. But he says something was then holding this wicked spirit back from fully manifesting himself...he is reticent to say what and who it is, lest his letter fall into the hands of the authorities, and the church undergo even further persecution. Because he says, "ye know WHAT withholdeth..." so he reminds them of how he told them in person back in verse 5 and that they knew at that time what was holding back the rise of Antichrist, the Roman empire. Then in verse 7 he states this mystery of iniquity was already at work, but now Paul speaks of a HE who will not allow the rise of THE Antichrist at that time, that is, Caesar himself. Because Antichrist would sit on a throne of spiritual and civil power at the same time and this would be impossible with Caesar in power. So "he who now letteth, will let until he be taken out of the way." Paul could not openly speak of the removal of the Emperor from his throne without unnecessarily putting the church at greater risk.
So the Roman beast then centuries later is slain and the Roman empire falls. Now rises THE Antichrist from the grave and ascends out of the bottomless pit. He comes from within the visible church, the temple of God, and exalts himself to be the holy Father, the vicar of Christ, and that his decrees supersede and cancel the inspired scriptures. He claims to be the Lord God on earth (check official Catholic doctrine). Because Satan found that his most effective strategy against Christ and His true church, was to provide a counterfeit Christ and church. And so the Pope would claim to be in Christ's place, posing as a friend of God and yet denying him. The very nature of what the Pope has done to oppose Christ, by counterfeiting him, acting in place of Him, is the true fulfillment of denying that Jesus is the Christ. The Pope doesn't openly deny Christ or God, he has found that the most subtle and effective of all methods is to deny Him by supplanting Him. So he is called the son of perdition in I Thessalonians 2:4 which was the name given to Judas, the betrayer of Christ. Antichrist is no mere civil ruler way off in the future, he is a betrayer of Jesus Christ. This is the ultimate betrayal.
And so the whole world wonders after the beast and worships him. And the kings of the earth give their power to him and subject themselves to him. And so he sends out his armies and priests to conquer and to kill whoever will not bow to him and take his brand on their foreheads. True Christians are burned alive, tortured, mutilated...men, women and children. The Waldensies were burned alive in a cave, choked to death by the smoke, men and women were filled with gun powder and blown up. Millions of God's elect all over the earth, over many long, dark, bloody centuries were slain by the beast, for not taking the mark of the papal beast and bowing to his image, and for standing for the truth.
But this woman, drunken with the blood of the saints has her end, and strong is the Lord God who judges her. Her sins have reached up to heaven and she shall receive double at the Lord's hand. At the brightness of His coming shall this Wicked be destroyed.
It's all documented, written down and signed with the blood of our brethren who now reign with Christ in heaven. They loved not their lives unto death. And we would do well to recognize all these things. To sit here in our modern age, and say that these these things have only a future fulfillment in something that will be really bad is laughable. But I think it possible though that at the end of the day, the Antichrist over there on the 7 hills in Rome may indeed rise up one more time in his full strength and lead one more full attack on God's people, and that in the midst of that, Christ will come. See Rev. 20:8-9
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is what I meant about an undistributed middle premise. You are offering us a string of assertions.
Your argument looks like this:
P --> Q
Therefore, Q
You haven't given us any exegetical connection showing us that the essence of the medieval/Tridentine papacy was embedded in the Thessalonians' understanding. You just assert that.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No, he isn't. No one here denies the Papacy's evil actions. One can say that the Papacy is evil, yet dispute your non-exegetical claims.
This is too funny to say these are my claims. You seem to ignore the fact that I have taken the historic Protestant position on this, and whether or not I'm exegeting passages well enough for you is besides the point. The problem is your ears are shut, and you're arguing with men like John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, John Calvin, John Bunyan and the list goes on and on and on. So go ahead and sit there and debate, debate debate and refuse to listen to the truth. That's your problem, not mine. Take care.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Exegesis. Sola Scriptura. Yes, and the end of the day it is exegesis that matters.
Yep and the Reformers quite well exegeted this. Please go read them.
Wretched Man
Puritan Board Freshman
You need to be careful with honing in on the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not ruling out the possibility Satan may manifest himself through the Pope in end times, but the Catholic church, much like most institutions, is losing influence over a new generation of cyber oriented, self-independent people who desire autonomy. I could just as easily see the likes of a Barack Obama, Oprah, Matt Damon, Bill Gates, or Prince Harry/Meghan - who "everyone loves" and can be trusted to compromise - being thrust into power and ushering in the Day of the Lord.
Consider Daniel 11:21, "In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." This was at least partially fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes, but I suspect will be ultimately fulfilled in the false prophet.
I mentioned this earlier, but as an Amillennialist, I view much of the book of Revelation and latter days prophesies throughout the Bible in a cyclical manner. When John wrote the book of Revelation (likely in early 70's or possibly 60's AD), I imagine much of his audience had Nero in mind for the antichrist. And I think he did partially fulfill this. But there would be many antichrists to emerge throughout the church age (i.e. "millennium").
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I have and I have interacted with their exegesis here. This isn't my first rodeo.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I simply asked logical questions and pointed out weaknesses in your argument, and this is how you respond?
BRK
Puritan Board Freshman
For those who understand the historic premillennial position well, what is the Scriptural purpose behind the earthly millennial reign of Christ? While I no longer hold dispensational views, the premillennial position makes sense within that system because it accounts for the earthly, national promises to Israel that the dispensationalist believes have yet to be fulfilled. However, under covenant theology the eschatological framework of the premillennial view is difficult for me to reconcile because it seems as if the prophetic projection of Scripture is not ultimately pointing toward earthly, national fulfillment but toward Christ and his Kingdom.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
BRK
Puritan Board Freshman
Jacob, I fear I may not understand what you mean here. Admittedly my view of premillennialism is filtered through my dispensational roots and I may be conflating dispensational and historic premillennial perspectives in some ways. Forgive me if I have mistakenly misrepresented the views!
The purpose of my question was to understand where the dispensational and historical positions diverge regarding the millennial reign. I think I understand the dispensational side to be looking forward to the fulfillment of ethnic, national promises to Israel. Of the historic side, I am not so certain what the understanding of the millennial reign is.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
- Status