Who first called the the papal power antichrist?

GE,

Please clarify. Are you saying that Milton was Catholic?

CA

 

He wasn't even that - he was a Unitarian pretending to be a Puritan.

 

First one is, it is church related. Mysteries are only known by the true church.

Second, I believe the "mystery" is this: that AC comes from within the church. Even Judas, Jesus disciple, was called "son of perdition" like this one in 2Thes 2:3 is. This man will be like Judas. Later in 2Thes 2, we learn that some of the church is left behind and believe him whose preaching is "strong delusion" from God -- somehow scriptural!

And we can't neglect Thyatira, the harlot CHURCH, who is "thrown into a bed and them that commit fornication with her into [the] great tribulation." Rev 2:22

Finally, if Christ's coming for His church is imminent, then there must have been an AC "standing by" all this time to take up his ruling mantle. Beginning with Simon Magus, I imagine that there has been such an one that even Paul could hope to be raptured, 1Thes 4:17 -- "Then WE..."

skypair

 

The eariliest possible recognition of the papacy being the Man of Sin is at the fall of the Roman power.

 

Interesting. Explain why that theory arises, please.

 

The way the Man of Sin should be identified is by Scripture. The Scriptures teach:

"And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." 2 Thess 2:6-7

What is it that the Thess. knew? From the Scripture we know that it was a "what" and a "who" which seems clear to me that the what was the Roman power and the who was the emperor. When both the power and seat fell, then the Man of Sin, Antichrist, would be revealed, that mystery of iniquity which was already at work.

 

It may seem clear to you, but I'm having trouble locating the specific mention of the Roman emperor in the passage, let alone his identification with the "restrainer"

 

Indeed. If it is Rome, it's not clear whether it's the first Rome referred to (in which case the date might be 476AD) or second (1453?) or third (Moscow - 1917? now? future?)

 

It's not specifically mentioned. And I think its not on purpose. The Apostle most likely didn't specifcally identify the who and what by name to prevent unessary persecution. They had already been accused of them of speaking against Ceaser. See Acts 17. So it makes sense to me that the Aposlte would not mention the Roman power and emperor specifically.

 

Actually Matt, I think it is clear. The Apostle referred to knowledge the Thessalonians had, not didn't have. They knew what and who restrained. They would not have known something later than the existing power.

When that power fell, who tooks its seat in Rome?

 

If you mean the Western Roman Empire, then Odoacer, the Ostrogoths, Byzantium (Eastern Rome), the Lombards, and the Holy Roman Empire; only in the Middle Ages did the Papacy assume temporal and well as spiritual power. Also your thesis appears to imply that only the Western (Catholic) Church was affected since the Eastern (Orthodox) Church never came under the authority of the Pope; indeed, its 'Rome' did not fall until 1453.

 

True. The Roman Empire continued on in its Eastern Half until Constantinople was sacked.

(And speaking of the 'Third Rome', I've read some who speculate that the "restrainer" was "taken out of the way" when the Romanov's ceased ruling Russia in 1917.)

At anyrate the continuation of the Roman Empire until the 1400s seems to mitigate against the whole papacy-is-the-man-of-sin business, and no one today really knows who the Thessalonians considered the restrainer to be.

 

I wouldn't expect romanists and those favorable to them to agree. I have to get on another call, but if I have time I will explain my beliefs that the papacy is the Man of Sin.

 

Oh, I see. When we ask for specific textual evidence that Paul is referring to the Roman emperor here, we're called "romanists and those favorable to them". Of course. :BangHead:

 

You shouldn't be so quick to jump the gun. I would love to spend the entire afternoon explaining why I believe what I believe with Scriptural support and historic references. I am at work and don't have the time to devote to that right now....as the post you replied to said.

Calm down there sonny boy...I will get to it. :laugh:

 

Oh, I'm sure you will, and I'm also sure it's not going to be anything that I haven't read before. (You see, I too went through a phase where I thought the RCC was the "Whore of Bablyon" and that the pope was "antichrist"...back when I was still reading my Chick comics and gracing my bookshelves with the tomes of Dave Hunt and Alexander Hislop.)

 

GE,

How do you see this quote from Dante making the point that "one could say with Constantine originator of Roman Catholicism"?

In this verse and in the context of Canto 19 I don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something.

CA

 

I may have a few minutes for a point.

My previous email dealt with the time of the revealing of Antichrist. The papacy (of course) would love nothing more than to futurize or preterize the appearing. But I don't believe the Scripture allows this.

2 Thess 2:7 shows us the mystery of iniquity was already at work at that time. We can accept the parallel text of 1 John 2:18 who affirms that many antichrists have already gone out in the world.

The fact should be established that Scripture calls it a mystery. No wonder it is difficult to pinpoint a precise date and time when the antichrist would be born. It is the opposite of the mystery of godliness in which Christ was in the world a good amount time before He was revealed to Israel. Same was true of Antichrist. He was a long-time in the world before he was revealed.

Scripture tells us that he (antichrist) won't be revealed until that which restrains is taken out of the way. Augustine has the rendering as he who firmly holds the rule. Chrysostom has the former. Both are valid. How could Antichrist exercise his power with Rome in the way?

Paralleling with Revelation 17 we understand that this refers to the divided Roman Empire, dispersed among 10 kings, which are also the ten toes of Daniel's vision in Dan 2:42. Antichrist was established as head over this beast,which is none other than papal rome. For a couple views on how the ten kings (kingdoms) are viewed review Giill on the matter. I don' know of anyone to traverse this much history..lol

Is there anyone here who would actually say the Roman power hasn't been removed, divided, and we find a woman riding a 10 horned beast sitting on 7 hills?