19th century England's "greatest teacher on prophecy", H. Grattan Guinness, has this to say:
"Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this “let,” or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars ; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early Church knew, he says, what this hindrance was. The early Church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had, by word of mouth only, told the Thessalonians. It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority. Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject."
For obvious reasons, Paul did not write down what he had previously told the Thessalonians, lest the letter fall into the wrong hands and bring against the fledgling Christian church the full might of the empire in response to what could only have been perceived as insurrection and intrigue.
Unfortunately, prophecy teachers for some time have wholly ignored the testimony of the ECF on the subject of the Restrainer, in order that the Futurism version of eschatology might be advanced. Again, according to Guinness, "modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject." "Modern speculation" being, of course, that the church is the restraining power which will be "raptured" out of the way in order to allow for the rise of antichrist. It should be pointed out that this modern speculation has only become mainstream Protestant theology in just the past several decades and was never found among Protestant eschatology prior to this period. For centuries, they had the same eschatological understanding on this subject as did Guinness.
Some of what the ECFs wrote on this issue:
“‘He who now hinders will hinder until he be taken out of the way’”; what obstacle is there but the ROMAN STATE; the falling away of which, by being scattered into 10 kingdoms, shall introduce antichrist.”---Tertullian, 200 A.D
“Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the ROMAN EMPIRE is taken out of the way, then he, the antichrist, shall come.”---Chrysostrom, 400 A.D.
“It is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle (Paul), “…only he that now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way”, refers to the ROMAN EMPIRE.”---St. Augustine, -400 A.D.
It is recommended that a review of the whole article The Early Church Fathers were Historicist - H. Grattan Guinness be made, but skip to point 5 of the article for further examples of such ECF testimony:
http://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/...-fathers-were-historicist-h-grattan-guinness/
"Paul distinctly tells us that he knew, and that the Thessalonians knew, what that hindrance was, and that it was then in existence. The early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this “let,” or hindrance, was the Roman empire as governed by the Caesars ; that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. Here we have a point on which Paul affirms the existence of knowledge in the Christian Church. The early Church knew, he says, what this hindrance was. The early Church tells us what it did know upon the subject, and no one in these days can be in a position to contradict its testimony as to what Paul had, by word of mouth only, told the Thessalonians. It is a point on which ancient tradition alone can have any authority. Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject."
For obvious reasons, Paul did not write down what he had previously told the Thessalonians, lest the letter fall into the wrong hands and bring against the fledgling Christian church the full might of the empire in response to what could only have been perceived as insurrection and intrigue.
Unfortunately, prophecy teachers for some time have wholly ignored the testimony of the ECF on the subject of the Restrainer, in order that the Futurism version of eschatology might be advanced. Again, according to Guinness, "modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject." "Modern speculation" being, of course, that the church is the restraining power which will be "raptured" out of the way in order to allow for the rise of antichrist. It should be pointed out that this modern speculation has only become mainstream Protestant theology in just the past several decades and was never found among Protestant eschatology prior to this period. For centuries, they had the same eschatological understanding on this subject as did Guinness.
Some of what the ECFs wrote on this issue:
“‘He who now hinders will hinder until he be taken out of the way’”; what obstacle is there but the ROMAN STATE; the falling away of which, by being scattered into 10 kingdoms, shall introduce antichrist.”---Tertullian, 200 A.D
“Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the ROMAN EMPIRE is taken out of the way, then he, the antichrist, shall come.”---Chrysostrom, 400 A.D.
“It is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle (Paul), “…only he that now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way”, refers to the ROMAN EMPIRE.”---St. Augustine, -400 A.D.
It is recommended that a review of the whole article The Early Church Fathers were Historicist - H. Grattan Guinness be made, but skip to point 5 of the article for further examples of such ECF testimony:
http://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/...-fathers-were-historicist-h-grattan-guinness/
Last edited: