The Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians

HP: What are your ideas about when the Holy Spirit withdraws Himself from an individual? Is it possible for the Holy Spirit to be present without actually influencing? Just asking. I have never really thought about that before.

 

Me neither, HP. I was stating a general principle, that if the HS is omnipresent, he cannot be gone from the earth or anywhere else. I think we understand what it means for the HS to indwell believers.

I think our limited human ability to sort this out comes into play here. The scripture tells us some things which are clear, leaving us to wonder about other things. This is one of those other things, I think.

 

HP: I believe that is indeed a good word on the issue. :thumbsup:

 

It may be better to think of this as the work of the restraining of the Holy Spirit to be taken out of the way. He will no longer work in the same way that He did in the age of grace. That is what is being taken out of the way. The Holy Spirit Himself, as you say, is omnipresent and cannot be literally removed from any scene. But He can stop His work. He can restrain from doing His work.

 

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

HP: Two problems that I see. First, it says nothing about stopping his work, but rather speaks to being ‘taken out of the way’ removed from the scene. Secondly, if it was a reference to the Holy Spirit and He stopped His work, no one could be saved subsequent to His stopping His work. How would you handle these objections?

 

1. As has already been noted, no one can remove God. He is omnipresent. Common sense prevails here. Who is going to take away God? You have a good point for the atheist.

2. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that will be taken out of the way. That is the obvious meaning of the verse. "He who now lets or permits." He will not permit his work to no longer go on. In your interpretation if he is completely absent then no one can be saved or the 144,000 be sealed. But if he stops his work, then his work can resume when he allows it to resume, according to His sovereign plan. It is God that is Sovereign. Not every part of His plan is revealed to us.

 

Thank you, DHK, for clarifying what I meant. I temporarily forgot one must dot every i and cross every tittle on here or some will jump to conclusions and inferences over what is not said exactly to their specs. Silly me.

 

HP: You are begging the question. You appear to be reasoning from the unproven presupposition that it is speaking of the Holy Spirit, when in fact that has not been established. That is what needs to be established, not simply assumed to be true apart from solid evidence.

HP: There is no such ‘obvious’ meaning in that the ‘he’ in any part of that verse refers to the Holy Spirit. That again is pure speculation, an unfounded pre-supposition that needs supporting evidence to be believed.
The verse says nothing about restraining nor does it speak directly to any work. It says,
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”
The position you seem to be trying to defend has problems if he is taken completely out of the way or if he stops his work. They both result in the impossibility of any getting saved subsequent to either suggestion. I simply do not accept the notion that the Holy Spirit is the one being alluded to period, so it is not a problem period to me. For one to establish doctrine, or for one to use such a dark passage to bolster yet another speculative doctrine (at best), is to add presumption upon speculation. Hardly a proper manner to establish truth.

 

HP: This is a debate forum, or so I thought. If one desires to simply pen their views without tidying up gaping holes in their logic, a debate forum is not most likely the best place to post. But, on the other hand, it is a great place to test ones views to improve ones position and learn how best to coin ones thoughts so as to generate the least amount of misunderstanding possible.

You did not simply forget to dot an ‘I’ or cross a ‘T’. You left yourself wide open to sound objections. Sorry. :wavey:

 

Objections, sure. "Sound" is debatable. :tongue3:

 

HP: Now that's the spirit.:thumbsup: One thing that I have learned on this list is that agreement kills good debate. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Maybe some of you scholars can check me on this, but I have always understood that "let" does not mean "allow" or "permit," here. It actually means the opposite. That's why he is called the restrainer.

Is this right?

 

The terms 'allow' and 'permit' do not negate the argument of the 'Him' being the 'restrainer'. If one 'allows' then one is confining another to do only certain things, the same with permit. It still implies the same the rendering as restrainer.

 

I'm not arguing one way or the other here. I'm questioning the interpretation of "let" as "allow." I've always heard it interpreted as "restrain, prevent, hinder." That is, the one who restrains is taken out of the way. Otherwise the verse would read "him who allows will allow" until he is taken out of the way.

 

Exactly, it implies the same meaning.

If I allow you to do something you can only do that which is allowed. IOW - you can't do what you want but only what I allow you.

 

In all my reading of eschatology (and I've read a bunch of dispites) without exception, the traditional interpretation of II Thess 2:7 is that the Holy Spirit leaves the earth with the saints at the rapture. That this absence will allow the rise of the anti-christ and all sorts of satanic evil will then flourish.

Only here on the Baptist Board have pre-tribbers taken the position that the HS simply ceases his restraining activity. The teaching was that when the HS leaves, no Gentile can be saved. Jews will be saved in a different way.

I first heard dispensational teaching in the late 1960s. Only this week have I heard your view expressed, DHK. That's almost a half-a-century.

 

Tom, in my studies I will agree that the majority view was the Holy Spirit but I have not read to often the view of Him being removed and no one could be saved with the exception of those who hold a Mid-trib view point, and that is the only group I have found to ascert that point of view.

Who are some of those you are reading?

 

I have always taken that same traditional view.
I still do, except to realize that the Holy Spirit is God, and God is omnipresent. That is the only caveat. How can one deny the omnipresence of God? I haven't really changed my view any, except to recognize God's divine attribute of omnipresence.

I have also heard it expressed that the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit is primarily in believers, where the Holy Spirit dwells. When the rapture occurs the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit is removed also for He primarily is present through the indwelling presence of believers. He works through believers. That may be Paul's meaning.
But it still does not negate His omnipresence.

 

That is happening now as we speak. Look around.

Christians are being persecuted and murdered right now as we speak. Look at the facts and the nations where persecution is happening today. Over 250 million Christians will be persecuted in 2009.

Agreed. Can you show me Scriptures that say these will be Gentile Christians? Perhaps they will be Jews that have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah via preaching of the sealed 144,000 during the Great Tribulation.

We will have to disagree on that one. I believe in a pre-trib Rapture or possibly a mid-trib Rapture and that is not the topic of this thread. I have discussed this many times on this Board before and do not wish to engage in a debate about it on this thread. But I do believe in the Rapture.

See above. Thanks.