Is The Holy Spirit Or The Church The Restrainer Of 2 Thess.?

Sorry... I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but that's ok since, as I said, I'll just stick to the scriptures and let the Holy Spirit teach me. That way I can say "this is what I got from the Lord" instead of "this is what I learned from [name your other-than-godly source]". ;)
That's cool, I know that most Christians today have never heard of Historicism and that's the reason for the thread. I think it's unfair to claim that Historicism is unBiblical without first examining it, though. Every Reformer and the Protestant churches that were founded by them taught Historicism without exception and based their interpretations on Scripture, not "other than godly sources".
 
That's cool, I know that most Christians today have never heard of Historicism and that's the reason for the thread. I think it's unfair to claim that Historicism is unBiblical without first examining it, though. Every Reformer and the Protestant churches that were founded by them taught Historicism without exception and based their interpretations on Scripture, not "other than godly sources".
If you mean history repeats itself, you bet... but you're quoting beliefs of people over what the word of God says... that's my objection. Too many focus on man instead of the word of God. I've been a christian for over 33 years and it amazes me the things I learn that I've NEVER heard anyone ever, not once, preach on, like multiple raptures, confusing hell with the lake of fire, faster rotation of the earth, change of the calendar BACK to a 360-day year... but it's going to happen because the scriptures say so. I'm tired of hearing what is being preached by walking dead preachers. I want refreshment via the Spirit!
 
If you mean history repeats itself, you bet... but you're quoting beliefs of people over what the word of God says... that's my objection.

Ok, let's leave out "people's beliefs" and focus on these two indisputable facts:

1) According to 2 Thessalonians 2:5,6 Paul himself told the Thessalonians who the Restrainer was and they knew for certain.
2) The Early Church Fathers with one accord, with one voice, in spectacular unanimity, without exception and without disputation, claim that Paul told them it was the Roman Empire - Paul himself, not ECF beliefs, but Paul himself identified it to them as such.

From this we must conclude one of two things:

1) Either Paul or the ECF or both were LYING, and the Restrainer is yet now preventing the rise of Antichrist, or
2) Paul and the ECF were telling the TRUTH and the Antichrist did arise just after the fall of the Roman Empire during a great "falling away" period of apostasy, and in response to the attacks of the Reformers during the Protestant Reformation, the Antichrist sent out two competing Jesuit 16th century interpretations, Preterism (teaches that Antichrist came in the first century AD) and Futurism (teaches Antichrist will come after the church is raptured away, in the middle east, to sit in a newly rebuilt Jewish temple during a 7 year period of tribulation). I simply choose to go with the Bible, Paul, and the ECF over the words of Jesuit priests, but I respect the opinions of others as well.
 
So, what do you think about what the ECF claim Paul told them about the Restrainer?

The ECF doesn't outrank what Holy Spirit shows us about who the Restrainer is. God's word itself, in reference to the Restrainer, uses the pronoun "he". Can you explain that?
 
The ECF doesn't outrank what Holy Spirit shows us about who the Restrainer is. God's word itself, in reference to the Restrainer, uses the pronoun "he". Can you explain that?
So, you are of the opinion that the ECF were lying then, and that Paul never told them that the Restrainer was Rome? BTW, Paul could very easily be referring to the Emperor of Rome, as Daniel did in his prophecy when referring the "head of gold" as King Nebuchadnezzer when it is clear from the context that the "head of gold' was not limited to just the king, but to Babylon itself.
 
So, you are of the opinion that the ECF were lying then, and that Paul never told them that the Restrainer was the Antichrist? BTW, Paul could very easily be referring to the Emperor of Rome, as Daniel did in his prophecy when referring the "head of gold" as King Nebuchadnezzer when it is clear from the context that the "head of gold' was not limited to just the king, but to Babylon itself.

Hey, the ECF were deceived about many things. They didn't pass down lies on purpose.
 
Hey, the ECF were deceived about many things. They didn't pass down lies on purpose.[/QUOTE

Yes, there were differences among the ECF on various issues, with some getting it right and others getting it wrong, but are you suggesting that every single church father that wrote on the subject got it wrong? Are you really willing to go that far to establish Futurism?
 
Yes, there were differences among the ECF on various issues, with some getting it right and others getting it wrong, but are you suggesting that every single church father that wrote on the subject got it wrong? Are you really willing to go that far to establish Futurism?

I am sure that anyone who suggests that the Antichrist has been and gone is wrong.
 
I am sure that anyone who suggests that the Antichrist has been and gone is wrong.
Based on? BTW, the Bible says that the Antichrist would reign, then disappear after receiving a "deadly wound" and then reemerge to have the entire world following after it.
 
Based on? BTW, the Bible says that the Antichrist would reign, then disappear after receiving a "deadly wound" and then reemerge to have the entire world following after it.

Well... that Antichrist has not appeared on the scene as yet. He will be a man, an end-time world ruler, the prince who is to come, called the “man of lawlessness” or “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

According to Daniel's vision, in Daniel 9, Satan will enter the person of the arrogant “man of lawlessness,” whose ethnicity could be from any of the culture groups stemming from the Roman Empire: Europe east through turkey and Russia to the Caspian Sea, through Iran, Iraq, Syria, south to Saudi Arabia and east across Israel and Lebanon, to Egypt to North Africa.

This man, indwelt by Satan, is the Antichrist. (2 Thessalonians 2:4)
 
Last edited:
You say the ECF declare “that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise.”

I do not think that is true…I think that’s his interpretation. I believe it is only correct to say they knew that the Anti-Christ would arise after but not on….in other words, there was no specific time frame assumed…it could be immediately or sometime in the future, they did not KNOW. I do agree with this however, that “Modern speculation is positively impertinent on such a subject.”

And then you say “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, this is a spin in order to attempt to negate the ECF’s obvious futurist view regarding Anti-Christ. Guinness’s speculation is positively impertinent here.

It is clear from history that the ECF were Historist.

Pishtosh! They never thought in terms of these positively impertinent modern designations. Where something already was, they were historicist where it had not happened or where dates were not specifically revealed they were futurist…an then whether they were even one or the other or both largely depends on the positively impertinent modern definitions of those terms (where members in the same camp sometimes disagree).

Now yes, at that late time in history (1400 A.D. onward), relative to their personal situation it was easy to make this assumption of the organized RCC, but in our time relative to our circumstances in the world a great case is made by many for Islam to be the Anti-Christ (and there have been other theories). Now I tell you it is obvious that both these and others (IMO pure Calvinism is another) are of the spirit of Anti-Christ, which arose even while He was here before His crucifixion, but are not “the” Anti-Christ. These persecutors of faithful ones who do not bow down to them are but type to this one as anti-type.

That the Anti-Christ is understood by the ECF's to be a specific PERSON is undeniable. If he has been revealed since 6 or 700 A.D. then he is one old, old, man....for he will be consumed at the parousia (the coming) and He has not yet returned. No... Guinness was a great preacher within his theological camp but not the final word in any sense of that term.

In His love

Paul
 
Not really. It is in line with the word of God.
In line with Scripture? Paul plainly says that the coming of the Lord and our gathering together to Him are two events which happen on the same day, as he did in his first epistle to the Thessalonians: "The Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first then we that are alive and remain shall be caught up..." He then goes on to say that these two simultaneous events cannot happen until after the "apostasia" and the rise of Antichrist occurs (vs. 3).

The unbiblical Jesuit Futurism you subscribe to says the opposite; that the church will restrain Antichrist until the Lord's "secret" second coming where He will rapture His church, which will then free the Antichrist to arise. Again, no ECF ever said anything but that the Restrainer was the Roman Empire, NOT the church. That comes from the mind of the Jesuit Ribera, not from the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top