WCF and the Antichrist

[MyCrows]

I can get behind the sentiment of the WCF and LBC of calling out the papacy as evil. However, I'm disappointed that they hitched that sentiment to
2 Thessalonians 2. Judaism was the woman that rode the beast of the Roman Empire in the first century. Today, the papacy is one of the women riding the beast of human kingdoms that are in opposition to God.

Isn't the primary point of WCF 25.6? That the Roman Catholic Church is the woman, the harlot that rides the beast?

Is not the primary thrust of the mention of the harlot in Revelation 17 and 19, that she is singular, and will be judged for her rebellion?

 

[Calvin Codger]

...the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him, (v.1)

...that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (v.3)

...an adversary, and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doth sit as God in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (v.4)

...he might be revealed in his time. (v.6)

...till he be taken out of the way. (v.7)

And then shall that wicked man be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall abolish with the brightness of his coming, (v.8)

Even him whose coming is by the effectual working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, (v.9)

And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies, (v.11)

So you believe these things have already occurred in 70? If so, what man in 70 entirely fit this description above? Surely he would be obvious in recorded history. And do you also believe these things above happened in 70?

The previous chapter in II Thessalonians seems to be clearly talking about the final judgment, not 70

Hello @Northern Crofter I would appreciate it if you would engage with my points in the previous post from which you clipped a snippet.
Here are my answers to your questions above.
1. Regarding the assembling (being gathered together) unto him, I will quote Ken Gentry:
" “gathering together to Him” Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 seems to reflect Matthew 24:31. The word translated “gather together” here is episunagoge. Its cognate verb form is found in Matthew 24:31, where Christ ties the gathering to “this generation” (Mt 24:34). It signifies the elect’s calling into Christ by means of the trumpeting in of the archetypical Great Jubilee (cf. 2Th 1:11; 2:14).3 Here it functions the same way. With the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christians will henceforth be “gathered together” in a separate and distinct “assembly” (episunagoge; the church is called a sunagoge in Jas 2:2). After the temple’s destruction God will no longer tolerate going up to the temple to worship (it will be impossible!), as Christians frequently do prior to AD 70."

2. Regarding the " a departing first," or Rebellion:
The apostasy or rebellion speaks to the revolt of the Jewish people against Rome. Even secular historians portray the Jewish Wars of 66-70 as a Jewish Revolt. To quote Gentry again ""I believe that it speaks primarily of the Jewish apostasy/rebellion against Rome. Josephus certainly calls the Jewish War against Rome an apostasia (Josephus, Life 4, 9, 10; J.W. 2:2:7; 2:16:4; 7:4:2; 7:6:1). Probably Paul merges the religious and political concepts here, though emphasizing the outbreak of the Jewish War, which results from their apostasy against God (Mt 22:1–7; Lk 19:41–44; 1Th 2:14–16). The emphasis must be on the revolt against Rome because it is future and datable, whereas the revolt against God is ongoing and cumulative."

3. Regarding the identity of the Son of Perdition
It is not required that we can identify this character by name. We know that he was alive in Paul's day because he was being restrained in Paul's day and we know the temple is still standing in Paul's day. I believe this is a Jewish high priestly character and a member of the Zealots - "a Jewish sect noted for its uncompromising opposition to pagan Rome and the polytheism it professed." This man is a/the leader of the rebellion against Rome. It was the Zealots who "In the fall of AD 66 the Jews combined in revolt, expelled the Romans from Jerusalem, and overwhelmed in the pass of Beth-Horon a Roman punitive force under Gallus" and ginned up support for the the Jews to reestablish God's "kingdom" and destroy the Romans. The Romans briefly retreated. The Jews celebrated this temporary victory. The Christians escaped. And the Romans later returned with a vengeance. It was the Zealots that burned the food inside the walls of Jerusalem in order force everyone to fight in this war. They Jews were covenant breakers under the delusion of rejecting Christ and accepting the call to rebellion. Whoever this character was, the Lord consumed him with the Spirit of his mouth at the destruction of Jerusalem.

4. Regarding the false signs and wonders:
Josephus describes 7 signs that occurred at this time. Based on the passage we're discussing, I believe Paul linked these signs to this Jewish leader. Whether all, some, or none of these signs actually occurred is immaterial. Paul called them "false signs and wonders" and they were well enough known that Josephus documented them.
-“So it was when a star resembling a sword, stood over the city[Jerusalem] and a comet which continued for a year.”
- “So again when, before the revolt and the commotion that led to war [i.e., before the war], at the time when the people were assembling for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthieus [Nisan], at the ninth hour of the night [3 a.m.] … … so brilliant a light shown round the [holy] altar and the sanctuary[of the temple] that it seemed to be broad daylight; and this continued for half an hour.
- “At that same feast [just after the 2nd sign, the great light over the altar] a cow that had been brought by someone for sacrifice gave birth [just before it was to be killed] to a lamb in the midst in the court of the Temple.”
-“The eastern gate of the inner court — it was of brass and very massive, and, when closed towards evening, could scarcely be moved by 20 men; fastened with iron-bound bars [on each side], it had bolts which were sunk to a great depth into a threshold consisting of a solid block of stone — this gate was observed at the sixth hour of the night [midnight] to have opened of its own accord. The watchmen of the temple ran and reported the matter to the captain, and he came up and with difficulty succeeded in shutting it.”
-“For before sunset throughout all parts of the country [of Judea] chariots were seen in the air and armed battalions hurtling through the clouds and encompassing the cities.”
- “Moreover, at the feast which is called Pentecost the priests [all 24 of them] on entering the inner court of the Temple by night as their custom was in the discharge of their ministrations, reported that they were conscious, first of a commotion and a din [a great noise], and after that of a voice as of a host [an army], ‘We are departing hence [from here].”
-“So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, ‘Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the Temple,’ as he added a last word, ‘and woe to me also,’ a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still on his lips he passed away.”

5. Regarding your comment on the the content of 2 Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 4 refers to the second coming. 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 refer to 70 AD. It is possible for Paul to discuss more than one topic in a letter. If you want to discuss this subject further, there is an active thread on this topic. We should join the discussion there.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I would appreciate it if you would engage with my points in the previous post from which you clipped a snippet.

I did not engage with your other points because we are coming from different traditions - I hold to the WCF as originally adopted and you admittedly do not on multiple fronts (the Antichrist, baptism, the nature of the Church). This thread was started by Steve inviting thoughts on the WCF and the Antichrist as he reexamines his views:

Pondering — and praying — as regards what sort of person it could be that “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4KJV), understanding that the “temple of God” in the NT age is the church.

His understanding is that the temple of God in the NT age is the Church - you hold more specifically that this means the invisible and not the visible Church. This is another area in which we disagree, so there seems to be little point discussing the view you presented:

It is no longer possible for a non-elect, godless unbeliever to take a seat in the temple of God. The new temple is Christ Himself and by definition could never contain an unbeliever. It is the invisible church. The possibility of an unbeliever taking their seat in the old temple of God ended in AD 70.

That the Antichrist will arise from within the (visible) Church is the view of the (original) WCF and the Scripture proofs provided are coming from that view. You are stating that the temple of God is now both "Christ Himself" and also "the invisible church." I don't see how that is possible, nor do I believe either is accurate. I could agree that the temple of God is the visible Church in keeping with II Corinthians 6, but, considering the context and audience Paul is writing in and to, the members of the visible Church in Corinth were not also all members of the invisible.

To quote Ken Gentry:
" “gathering together to Him” Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 seems to reflect Matthew 24:31. The word translated “gather together” here is episunagoge. Its cognate verb form is found in Matthew 24:31, where Christ ties the gathering to “this generation” (Mt 24:34). It signifies the elect’s calling into Christ by means of the trumpeting in of the archetypical Great Jubilee (cf. 2Th 1:11; 2:14).3 Here it functions the same way. With the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christians will henceforth be “gathered together” in a separate and distinct “assembly” (episunagoge; the church is called a sunagoge in Jas 2:2). After the temple’s destruction God will no longer tolerate going up to the temple to worship (it will be impossible!), as Christians frequently do prior to AD 70."

I like a lot of Gentry's commentary on eschatology but he is not perfect. It is a common fallacy to assume that a word used in one place by one Biblical author necessarily means the same elsewhere. What Jesus said in Matthew's gospel was in the context of preaching to the nation of Israel. What Paul writes in his Thessalonian letters was to Greeks in Thessalonica after the death and resurrection of Christ. Those are two very different audiences and occasions. Yes, there are connections, but every word common between the two passages/contexts is not automatically interchangeable in its meaning and application.

The apostasy or rebellion speaks to the revolt of the Jewish people against Rome.

This is an interpretation, not something that is arrived at from Scripture. Do you have any Reformed writers prior to/in addition to Gentry making this claim? Again, we are coming from different eschatalogical perpectives - you seem to be much further down the road to full-blown preterism than I am.

It is not required that we can identify this character by name.

Can you think of another prophecy of such significance that was fulfilled so vaguely? For example, Daniel predicted Alexander the Great and the rise of the Roman Empire, and Isaiah predicted the reign of Cyrus and the destruction of Assyria. Someone this significantly predicted in Scripture would surely be known and recorded would they not? The authors of the WCF certainly believed so, so they named him/them/it.

4. Regarding the false signs and wonders:

Relying solely on one source is always problematic - when that one source is Josephus it is even more so. Again, do you have any Reformed writers supporting this claim? Or that the early Church understood this as the fulfilment of the what Christ and Paul prophesied?

5. Regarding your comment on the the content of 2 Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 4 refers to the second coming. 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 refer to 70 AD. It is possible for Paul to discuss more than one topic in a letter. If you want to discuss this subject further, there is an active thread on this topic. We should join the discussion there

Brother, I did not bring the content of 2 Thessalonians into this thread. I have little to offer the other thread beyond what I wrote above (that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and Paul's epistles to the Thessaloniki are written in two different contexts to two different groups of people). But do note that the WCF twice uses II Thessalonians 2.4 to refer to the Pope/Papacy (see end of 23.4 as well as 25.6), so dialogue over this issue between two sides who have different confessions and levels of adherence to them does not seem overly fruitful.

 

[Calvin Codger]

@Northern Crofter
Please let me know you thoughts on this. Many of the points you suggest are downstream from this. Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 refer to 70 AD or the second coming? Why?

As I mentioned earlier:
The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is 70 AD. Think about how odd 2 Thessalonians 2:2 would be if you try to apply it to the eschaton: "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"
Did the Thessalonians actually think second coming and the "end of the world" had already come and they missed it?

I interpret the passage holistically to refer to 70 AD. That's driven at least in part by my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:2. I don't see how believers would worry that they missed the eschaton. So if the day of the Lord in that verse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem here, what do you do with the rest of the passage?
From NT Wright:
"‘Contrary to the thinking of both scholars and pietists of many backgrounds, Paul was not envisaging the ‘Parousia’ as an event which had to take place in his lifetime, and which would result in the ending of the space-time order. If that were so, how could he possibly write in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 that the church should not be alarmed if they received a letter saying that the ‘day of the Lord had come’? If Paul meant by ‘the day of the Lord’ the end of the space-time universe, the Thessalonians would presumably not need to be informed of the fact via the Roman postal service! Instead, Paul here reflects the early Christian tradition, going back to Jesus himself, according to which Jerusalem was to be destroyed, and according to which that destruction was to be interpreted as the wrath of God against his sinful people. In the same Thessalonian correspondence, Paul asserted that the wrath of God had indeed come upon them ‘to the uttermost’"

 

[Calvin Codger]

You are stating that the temple of God is now both "Christ Himself" and also "the invisible church." I don't see how that is possible, nor do I believe either is accurate.

The new temple is simultaneously defined as Christ Himself (Mark 14:58), believers individually (1 Corinthians 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Corinthians 6:16).

1 Peter 2:4-5
"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

How can the antichrist be "in the sight of God chosen and precious"?

 

[MW]

Then I recently read Trinity Foundation’s article, “Antichrist’s Illegal Alien Assault on America”, By Steven T. Matthews, on the papal office’s strategy against national identities holding out against Rome’s agenda, and it appeared this is most feasible, and alarming — As the papacy is not at all diminished in its power!

Any thoughts on this?

Steve, the article makes a point of lamenting the American Presbyterian omission of the confessional statement, and gives some anecdotal evidence that this has led to openness towards the papacy. It also makes some interesting remarks on Papal support for immigration in communist terms. No doubt this is disastrous for the USA and all free countries in the world. But one would have to suppose that the USA has a centrist role in the fulfilment of biblical prophecy to think that this points out the antichrist.

I think a book like Wylie's demonstration establishes the confessional claim on a Scriptural basis, which is a more solid and substantial way of examining the subject.

On Rev. 17-18, we will need the help of the preterists to understand the idealist message. Consider what Milligan says,

"Now there was one scene of the past—how well does he remember it, for he was present at the time!—when the Roman power and a degenerate Judaism, the beast and the harlot of the day, combined to make war upon the Lamb. For a moment they seemed to succeed, yet only for a moment. They nailed the Lamb to the cross; but the Lamb overcame them, and rose in triumph from the grave. But the Seer did not pause there. He looked a few more years onward, and what did he next behold? That wicked partnership was dissolved. These companions in crime had turned round upon one another. The harlot had counselled the beast, and the beast had given the harlot power, to execute the darkest deed which had stained the pages of human history. But the alliance did not last. The alienation of the two from each other, restrained for a little by co-operation in common crime, burst forth afresh, and deepened with each passing year, until it ended in the march of the Roman armies into Palestine, their investment of the Jewish capital, and that sack and burning of the city which still remain the most awful spectacle of bloodshed and of ruin that the world has seen. Even this is not all. St. John looks still further into the future, and the tragedy is repeated in the darker deeds of the last "hour." There will again be a "beast" in the brute power of the ten kings of the world, and a harlot in a degenerate Jerusalem, animating and controlling it. The two will again direct their united energies against the true Church of Christ, the "called, and chosen, and faithful." They may succeed; it will be only for a moment. Again the Lamb will overcome them; and in the hour of defeat the sinful league between them will be broken, and the world-power will hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her utterly with fire."

Milligan has captured the historical background but then falls short at the point of application. He interprets the beast as the spirit of the world and the woman as the spirit of false religion. This is too general, and does not bring out the covenantal whoredom involved in the crucifixion of Christ. When we allow the historical narrative to inform our idealism we see there is a dynamic picture here of what would emerge in the Christian church (what already began to manifest itself in some of the churches of Asia). The Jewish antichrist has its counterpart in a corrupt Christian antichrist. And it is at this point we are bound, as Protestants, to see the papacy in its true, spiritual, covenantal character.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Please let me know you thoughts on this.

I thought you only wanted to discuss this subject further in the other thread on this topic....

Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 refer to 70 AD or the second coming?

I believe Paul, in what we refer to as the first few chapters of II Thessalonians, is speaking of that final day of the Lord and Paul is teaching that it shall not come until there be a departure from the faith, and the Antichrist be fully exposed and destroyed. The context is that the Thessalonians were, at the time of writing, being persecuted, therefore Paul's purpose was to exhort them to constancy.

Why?

As I mentioned earlier:
The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is 70 AD. Think about how odd 2 Thessalonians 2:2 would be if you try to apply it to the eschaton: "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"
Did the Thessalonians actually think second coming and the "end of the world" had already come and they missed it?

Why would the Greeks at Thessalonica be concerned of rumors that the Jews in Jerusalem had already been judged (yes, I do believe that sometimes "the day of the Lord" refers at times in Scripture to the judgment of the nation of Israel)? Within the context of II Thessalonians (2.2-3), it seems they had received a letter purportedly from Paul or the Apostles telling them they had received false teaching (we have many references in the epistles where the Apostles have to respond to false things that the Church had heard), perhaps, it would seem, telling them the final day of the Lord had come or that the resurrection had already occurred - perhaps it was something similar to a dispensational premillennial rapture or a similar twisting of what Paul had written them earlier in I Thessalonians 4.17.

The destruction of Jerusalem was imminent - Christ had already taught this (Matthew 24.34) and yet Paul tells the Thessalonians in II.2.2 "be not suddenly moved from your mind... as though the day of Christ were at hand"(I do not believe the translation you are using "to the effect that the day of the Lord has come" is the best rendering of the Greek - I'll defer to others more knowledgeable of Biblical Greek). So whatever he is talking about was not imminent ("at hand") - within that generation.

The new temple is simultaneously defined as Christ Himself (Mark 14:58), believers individually (1 Corinthians 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Corinthians 6:16).

1 Peter 2:4-5
"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

How can the antichrist be "in the sight of God chosen and precious"?

Again, this is the fallacy involved when doing a word search in Scripture and assuming they all mean the same despite the differing contexts. The Mark 14:58 and 1 Corinthians 6:19 passages refer to physical bodies. Only 2 Corinthians 6:16 uses the phrase "temple of God," a phrase which I agree refers to the Church. 1 Peter 2:4-5 is referring to the invisible Church ("chosen of God"). So, of course, the Antichrist is not chosen of God and precious. But, again, it has been the consistent view of the Church, especially the Reformed writers, that the Antichrist will arise from within the visible Church.

I hope I've answered your questions. I probably won't answer any more until you respond in kind as I have asked you several questions in #33 above that you have not yet responded to. But I feel like our back-and-forth is probably not all that helpful to the OP.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Calvin and friends,

Just to reiterate, I'm trying to keep this discussion within a narrow range of topics: from where does the man of sin — aka the Antichrist — arise? From Rome, i.e., the papal office, or could it be from elsewhere? And what does the papal endeavor — as per the Trinity Foundation article in the OP — portend, what with its sacralizing massive population transfers such that both Europe's (except for Hungary at this point) and the U.S.'s self-governance and economies are profoundly weakened as a result?

Could Rome's undermining of such nations' national identities and governance be coopted by another political-spiritual-ideological entity, the papal office (and its popes) being sidelined? What could possibly do that? I doubt Islamic, though don't rule out communism.

I'm requesting that general eschatological topics not be promoted or argued, but staying with the above-mentioned topics, or those closely related. Thank you!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for the quote from Wm. Milligan's, Book of Revelation, p 158.

(Is he departing from his "consistent" Idealist view?)

At any rate, he says (evidently commenting on Rev 17:12-18),

There will again be a "beast" in the brute power of the ten kings of the world, and a harlot in a degenerate Jerusalem, animating and controlling it. The two will again direct their united energies against the true Church of Christ, the "called, and chosen, and faithful." They may succeed; it will be only for a moment. Again the Lamb will overcome them; and in the hour of defeat the sinful league between them will be broken, and the world-power will hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her utterly with fire.​

Matters I have pondered before:

"their united energies [the beast and the harlot] against the true Church of Christ, the 'called, and chosen, and faithful.' They may succeed; it will be only for a moment". What would this look like — what would it entail?

And the following "world-power" of the ten kings — [a coalition of many nations], the "beast" of the end of the age — will turn against the harlot, and utterly destroy her.

Are these sequential, as in the order seen in Rev 17?

What would this look like? If the harlot is the apostate church (degenerate Jerusalem), her destruction would be what?

I know these are but symbolic appellations / images, but what would be their realities?

 

[MW]

Steve, I don't think he was departing from a consistent view. Only I would like to see a more consistent use of the historic significance of "Jerusalem which now is" in forming the "ideal."

I don't equate the beast with the end of the age. In New Testament eschatology the last times are an inaugurated reality.

Idealism, in my opinion, means that we are not dealing with sequential events but a state of affairs that exists in covenantal terms. Our natural desire is to want to link them to something specific and concrete that we see in the world around us. It is just here that the preterist view falls down because it is focused on events. Historicists go down the same road. Meanwhile the visions are contorted to fit into a sequential schema.

I think we can "apply" the ideal in time without falling into the sequential trap. We see these covenantal realities at work in our world. That does not mean we have to see them play out chronologically as they are presented in Revelation. In this way I can see the papacy with its lust for dominance (Nicolaitanism), fornication with the nations (Jezebelism), and selling of the truth (Balaamism) as a historic manifestation of the covenantal reality described in Revelation.

As for its destruction, that seems to me to be inevitable. We have already seen the kings of the earth turning against her. Will there be a revival of the image? That is possible. Will it be in the same form? I cannot be sure. What I do know is that there is a glorious time coming when Christ will slay the beast and the false prophet and the kingdoms of this world will be Christ's in accord with His mediatorial charge and commission, Ps. 2:8-9.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Matthew, for your thoughts.

My only reference to "sequential events" was in saying that Rev 17:14KJV "These [the beast and his coalition] shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them" was not to be thought an event previous to Rev 17:16KJV, "And the ten horns [coalition of nations] which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire". It was, rather, looking ahead — that after their destroying Babylon they would in turn be destroyed by the Lamb. It was a literary (proleptic) device by John.

I agree with your view that we are not to look at Revelation's symbols as sequential, but — mostly — recapitulating spiritual dynamics. Where I differ with the consistent Idealist view is that I am a "modified" or "eclectic" Idealist (per Greg Beale), allowing a very few historical events prophetically declared, and seen in hindsight.

For instance, in Rev 9:15, "And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men" indicated a "time stamp" (a number of amil commentators concurring) as regards the 6th trumpet woe: a furthering of the 5th trumpet's woe of a massive deception clouding the collective consciousness of all those "who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads" — the unregenerate of the world — and who are plunged into psychological-spiritual torment and despair. I write about this a lot, the "time stamp", and the actual event involved — which I maintain, and defend — is the little seen but seismic event of the Woodstock era and its "recreational sorcery": the use of the psychedelic / entheogen agents which allow the opening of the demonic realm to the human collective consciousness.

Although the commentators do allow such a time stamp granting an historic event, they, none of them, venture what that might be!

More was going on in the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s than anyone imagined — occult happenings that would impact “the spirit of the age” come the 21st century like pounding blows on the body and soul of humankind.

You have said, Matthew — in earlier conversations — that I am an historicist for taking this eclectic stance, but I refute that allegation, which is not accurate, as an eclectic Idealist is in no way an historicist!

At any rate, I defend my views exegetically and with regard to the OT and NT use of sorcery / φαρμακεία in Scripture.

It is accepted that the “eclectic” or “modified idealist” view (Beale)1 allows some departure from the idealist, though as to where the line is drawn there is no clear consensus. Beale himself says, “...certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past present and future.” 2

1 G.K. Beale, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation (Eerdmans 1999), pp 48, 49.
2 Ibid., p 49.

One of the well-recognized flaws of the consistent Idealist view — at least in the eyes of many — is that it has no grounding in the New Testament age itself, i.e., is all abstract and symbolic and devoid of any real prophetic relevance, as we are used to thinking of prophecy.

I don't wish to debate this afresh — we have done this thoroughly in the past.

What I desire to understand is, a) if Rome and its papal office is not the Antichrist / man of sin spoken of, who or what could it be? And b) what sort of coalition might be formed against Babylon to destroy it? What alternatives to Rome are there for such an undertaking?

 

[MW]

I don't wish to debate this afresh — we have done this thoroughly in the past.

OK. I will leave it there then. Thanks, Steve.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Matthew!

As I said in post 20,

Cornelis P. Venema's, The Promise of the Future, which replaced Hoekema's work as the Reformed seminaries' eschatology textbook, has this to say,

Because this figure [Antichrist / man of lawlessness] arises within the orbit of the temple or church, many of the Reformers, including Calvin, identified the man of lawlessness or the Antichrist with the institution of the papacy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), for example, originally spoke of the pope as the Antichrist (XXV.6). This is not, however, the confessional position of the Reformed churches. Most Presbyterian denominations that subscribe to the Westminster standards have removed the reference to the pope as the Antichrist from these standards. [emphasis added -SMR] p. 168, fn 2​

I do not mean to play the two confessional positions against one another — for they both are excellent — but they both cannot be right. And the strong majority of sound Reformed churches do hold to the WCF which removes the pope as "the" Antichrist, so it can be said this is the confessional position.

Hoekema also, in post 20, entertains the possibility of a setting in which the antichrist / man of sin could arise other than the professing church.

Just as, years ago, I tried to envision how the destruction of Babylon could be effected without destroying the whole world (it would be its HQ nation and not the entire Babylonian system of the world against God and His people), such pondering was fruitful. That is why I look for other possibilities as regards the man of sin, and his platform of operation besides the professing church. I'm not saying it is not the professing church, but just looking elsewhere also.