Who first called the the papal power antichrist?

[CarpentersApprentice]

... Extract from, Milton, Poetical Works, Oxford University Press 1979, edited by Douglas Bush

Of Reformation Touching Church Discipline in England (1641)

“... In his five anti-episcopal tracts Milton translates from Dante, Petrach, and Ariosto, “three the most famousest men for wit and learning that Italy at this day glories of”, as witnesses for “for a received opinion even among men professing the Romish faith, that Constantine marred all in the Church.” (Works, 3, 1, 26-27; C.P.W., 1, 558-60). The point of the excerpts can be best appreciated in the setting of Milton’s prose: ...

GE: So that’s it – not the Seventh Day Adventists, not even the Puritans, but the Roman Catholics themselves! Is it not amazing! ‘Constantine the first pope’ is what I have heard said, and thought mad.

GE,

Please clarify. Are you saying that Milton was Catholic?

CA

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE,

Please clarify. Are you saying that Milton was Catholic?

CA

GE
Dear friend, read!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sorry that I was rude.
No, he was - if I have the right to 'label' Milton - a Puritan.

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[skypair]

For me the question, What are its [mystery of iiquity] properties or characteristics - recognisable outstanding 'marks'?

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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

 

[Matt Black]

Interesting. Explain why that theory arises, please.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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"

 

[Matt Black]

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?)

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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"

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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?)

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?

 

[Matt Black]

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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.)

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

...(Milton of Dante says, GE)
“Dante in his 19. Canto of Inferno [115-17] hath thus, as I will render it you in English blank verse:

Dante: Ah Constantine, of how much ill was cause
Not thy conversion, but those rich domains
That the first wealthy pope received of thee....

GE: So that’s it – not the Seventh Day Adventists, not even the Puritans, but the Roman Catholics themselves! Is it not amazing! ‘Constantine the first pope’ is what I have heard said, and thought mad.

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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

These are differently reckoned up by interpreters: by Napier thus; Spain, France, Lombardy, England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and the exarchate of Ravenna: by Mr. Mede after this manner; the Britains in Britain, under Vortimer their king; the Saxons in the same place, under Hengist; the Franks in Gallia Belgica, or Celtics, under Childeric; the Burgundians in another part of France, under Gunderic; the Wisigoths in Aquitain, and part of Spain, under Theodoric; the Sueves and Alans in Gallaecia and Portugal, under Riciarius; the Vandals in Spain and Africa, under Genseric; the Almains in that part of Germany called Rhetia, under Sumanus; the Ostrogoths in Pannonia, and after in Italy, under Theodomir; and the Greeks in the rest of the empire, under Marcianus: and by another {u} writer they are accounted for in this way; the Almains in both the Rhetia, and in Pannonia, who rose in the year 356; the Ostrogoths, first in Pannonia, and then in Italy, in 377; the Wisigoths in Pannonia, and then in Italy, afterwards in France, and last of all in Spain, in 378; the Huns in Pannonia, and for some time throughout all Europe, in 378; the Britian Romans in Britain, and afterwards the Saxons, in 406; the Sueves, first in France, and then in Spain, in 407; the Alans, first in France, and then in Spain, in 407; the Vandals, first in France, then in Spain, afterwards in Africa, in 407; the Burgundians in France, in 407; the Franks in France, in 410. And it is generally thought all these ten kingdoms were up by the year 450 at least. Though Dr. Allix makes the epocha of them A. D. 486, when the western empire was taken from the Romans, and fixes them in the following order; the Almains in Rhetia and Pannonia; the Franks in Belgica; the Anglo-Saxons in Britain; the Wisigoths in Gallia Aquitania and Hispania Tarraconensis; the Sueves and Alans in Portugal; the Vandals in Africa; the Burgundians in Gallia Sequanensis; the Ostrogoths in Pannonia, and afterwards in Italy; the Lombards in Pannonia, and the Heruli and Turcilingi, who conquered Augustulus: and though these kingdoms were thrown into different forms and shapes afterwards, yet it is remarkable they were just of this number; as, 1. Italy and Germany; 2. France; 3. Spain; 4. England with Ireland; 5. Scotland; 6. Hungary; 7. Poland with Lithuania; 8. Denmark, with Sweden and Norway, Sweden being since divided; 9. Portugal; 10. The Grecian empire seized by the Ottomans. And as these kings cannot be understood of single persons at the head of these kingdoms, or of so many kings succeeding one another; so neither is it necessary to consider these kingdoms as being in the same state, and made up of the same sort of people always; it is enough that they are in the same place, and within the empire; for we, may observe, that different things, at different times, are ascribed to them, or at least to some. They all are at first of one mind, and give their kingdom to the beast; then they, at least some of them, hate the whore, and burn her with fire; and yet others lament the destruction and burning of Rome, Re 17:16.

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?