Who Is The Restrainee?

[vette]

Hi all, first post here...

I have seen lots of discussion about who the restrainer is, but not much about who or what is being restrained. Is it a 'man' that is being held back in the time of Paul or a symbolic something or other?

2 Thess 2
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that MAN of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

(Called a 'man' here)

Who opposeth and exalteth HIMSELF above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that HE as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing HIMSELF that he is God.

(Sure seems like a human here as well)

Paul told somebody back then that they KNEW what IS holding him ( the man of lawlessness) back. That would mean the man was being held back at that time. That would mean that this revealing would have to be before this guy physically dies.

Paul was talking about A MAN being withheld...THEN

Whoever or whatever the Restrainee was, it sure seems like the Church of Thessalonia KNEW the identity, doesn't it? 2 Thess 2:6-And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. Paul is not speaking to us..we're reading what he told THEM.

So... Who was this man in your opinion? Titus? John of Gischala? Simon of Giora? Was it the Eleazor who was the govenor of the Temple? Caligula? Some member of the Roman army?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

The best argument I have heard is that Claudius was the restrainer and Nero was the retrainee. I don't know the argument well enough to articulate it off the top of my head (but I think Darth Xena does). If she does not respond I can try to look it up (or you can google or search TWeb, I know it was discussed here before).

[vette]

But if 2 Thess was written around 51 AD then Nero was around 14 when the epistle was written, and he wouldn't be Emperor for two more years. So does it make sense that he was being restrained at that time?

I'll try a search on TWeb, thanks.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

But if 2 Thess was written around 51 AD then Nero was around 14 when the epistle was written, and he wouldn't be Emperor for two more years. So does it make sense that he was being restrained at that time?

I'll try a search on TWeb, thanks.Er...yeah....I think I may have said it bacwards... :blush:

[David_A_Reed]

The best argument I have heard is that Claudius was the restrainer and Nero was the retrainee. I don't know the argument well enough to articulate it off the top of my head (but I think Darth Xena does). If she does not respond I can try to look it up (or you can google or search TWeb, I know it was discussed here before).For nearly 2000 years the common view was that the Roman Empire was the restrainer:

“What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)?” wrote Tertullian (145 to 220 A.D.) in De Resurrectione Carnis (On The Resurrection of the Flesh).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315 to 386 A.D.) wrote, “But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled... There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans... and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power.” (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XV)

And, after the papacy took power in Rome, the common view among Bible-believers was that the restrainee was the antichrist whose power was already at work in Paul’s day and whose full manifestation developed as the papacy grew more and more powerful. This view prevailed among the preachers of the Reformation, and continued through the writings and sermons of many including Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes and Charles Haddon Spurgeon -- until pushed aside by dispensationalist thinking in the late 1800's.

David

[maudman]

Hi all, first post here...

I have seen lots of discussion about who the restrainer is, but not much about who or what is being restrained. Is it a 'man' that is being held back in the time of Paul or a symbolic something or other?

2 Thess 2
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that MAN of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

(Called a 'man' here)

Who opposeth and exalteth HIMSELF above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that HE as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing HIMSELF that he is God.

(Sure seems like a human here as well)

Paul told somebody back then that they KNEW what IS holding him ( the man of lawlessness) back. That would mean the man was being held back at that time. That would mean that this revealing would have to be before this guy physically dies.

Paul was talking about A MAN being withheld...THEN

Whoever or whatever the Restrainee was, it sure seems like the Church of Thessalonia KNEW the identity, doesn't it? 2 Thess 2:6-And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. Paul is not speaking to us..we're reading what he told THEM.

So... Who was this man in your opinion? Titus? John of Gischala? Simon of Giora? Was it the Eleazor who was the govenor of the Temple? Caligula? Some member of the Roman army?

hello vette

it's simple, the restrainer is ''he that now letteth lets'

[gharfish]

My interpretation: God the Holy Spirit is the restrainer; as He indwells every true Christian believer and is in a sense "taken away," along with these same believers in the event referred to as the rapture of the Church. What I believe [will happen] is that God chooses to be less restraining of evil during the period that is commonly referred to as the tribulation ("Daniel's 70th week").

~edit, to add: "Restrainee." Rats, I missed that. Good OP question. My say: the Antichrist person in the future.

[eschaton]

It is the time of the man as well as the man who is being restrained. It is said "in his time," or "so that he may be revealed when his time comes (NRSV)." Paul starts out by saying the Day of the Lord is not already here (v1). Two things have to happen first. Then he says now you know. They know because he just told them. They know why the Day of the Lord is not already, what restrains the Day of the Lord, as well as the man of sin. Prophecy must be fulfilled in the way he has told them before. The Word of God must be fulfilled in the way God has proclaimed. God restrains by the fulfillment of His word. He doesn't allow until the fulfillment of His word is taken out of the way. His Word restrains. They know because Paul just told them.

[spauline]

Catholicism, based on DOuahy Rheims, tends to see the bigger picture here: What is restrained is the FULL CONSEQUENCES of the dogmatic reality ORIGINAL SIN, that is, man's fallen nature. What restrains is the Redemptive action of God in Human history. IOW, if the Holy Spirit can yet draw a greater spiritual good in human history, than the world does not end. Only after humanity attains to the fullness of the Redemption of the Gentiles, only after they have tasted, in the fullest possible way, of the fruits of truth and grace, will humanity be incurable in the final manifestation of sin. For the angels [presumably] knew everythjing that could be understood of the Divine Plan for this world , when they rebelled, hence, their rejection being so radical and total and complete and utterly depraved, they are incapable of changing their mind, and the nature of their sin is also unforgivable.

So then, the author of Hebrews explains in the sixth chapter, after one has tasted of the powers to come, if they fall away, it is "impossible" to bring them back, that is, practically and not absolutely.

So then, when the Gentiles rebel against God after the fullness of the Gentiles, they will be practically unforgivable and practically irredeemable, hence, there will be "nothing" to restrain the full consequences of the fallen nature, hence, the world must end. Not that there is something wrong with the Holy Spirit, but that there is something wrong with us.

It is then no wonder that anti-Catholic Calvinists tend to believe in permanent postmillennial Christianization of the world, just as they beleive commonly that a truly saved person can never fall away. But history and common sense prove them wrong. Adam and Eve once loved God, then they sinned. Israel was brought into the OLd Cov, but eventually they kicked and screamed their way out of it. When David walked in as a young lad, the Scriptures all but scream that he truly loved God in that moment and was why God chose him. Later, he committed adultery followed by murder. The European civilizations used to be Christian, and what are they now?

So then, the ultimate postmiller is in denial of all but dogma: when Christ returns, there will be but little faith on earth, a small remnant of Gentiles and the Jews.

[eschaton]

Catholicism, based on DOuahy Rheims, tends to see the bigger picture here: What is restrained is the FULL CONSEQUENCES of the dogmatic reality ORIGINAL SIN, that is, man's fallen nature. What restrains is the Redemptive action of God in Human history. IOW, if the Holy Spirit can yet draw a greater spiritual good in human history, than the world does not end. Only after humanity attains to the fullness of the Redemption of the Gentiles, only after they have tasted, in the fullest possible way, of the fruits of truth and grace, will humanity be incurable in the final manifestation of sin. For the angels [presumably] knew everythjing that could be understood of the Divine Plan for this world , when they rebelled, hence, their rejection being so radical and total and complete and utterly depraved, they are incapable of changing their mind, and the nature of their sin is also unforgivable.

So then, the author of Hebrews explains in the sixth chapter, after one has tasted of the powers to come, if they fall away, it is "impossible" to bring them back, that is, practically and not absolutely.

So then, when the Gentiles rebel against God after the fullness of the Gentiles, they will be practically unforgivable and practically irredeemable, hence, there will be "nothing" to restrain the full consequences of the fallen nature, hence, the world must end. Not that there is something wrong with the Holy Spirit, but that there is something wrong with us.

It is then no wonder that anti-Catholic Calvinists tend to believe in permanent postmillennial Christianization of the world, just as they beleive commonly that a truly saved person can never fall away. But history and common sense prove them wrong. Adam and Eve once loved God, then they sinned. Israel was brought into the OLd Cov, but eventually they kicked and screamed their way out of it. When David walked in as a young lad, the Scriptures all but scream that he truly loved God in that moment and was why God chose him. Later, he committed adultery followed by murder. The European civilizations used to be Christian, and what are they now?

So then, the ultimate postmiller is in denial of all but dogma: when Christ returns, there will be but little faith on earth, a small remnant of Gentiles and the Jews.


So is that what Paul had explained to the Thessalonians? Is that what he said "and now you know" about, and "Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?"

[spauline]

In general, this is how the Catholic Church understands it, altough not dogma. Most likely, then, yes, this is what St. Paul meant. Any other meaning would be secondary and missing the point. Of course, there will be, most likely, an individual, final AC guy at the very end, a type, if you will, of Antiochus, the OT Antichrist. But the identity of this man is less important than the fact that at his time, the Gentiles will be basically incurable spiritually. BTW, I don't think we're there yet. If you follow my position, i think this modern world that is admittedly in partial apostasy, can be restored by a chastisement, and that they are forgivable, for in large part, they reject the faith because of the scandal of Christian division and times when Christians treated each other in a less than desirable manner.

[eschaton]

In general, this is how the Catholic Church understands it, altough not dogma. Most likely, then, yes, this is what St. Paul meant. Any other meaning would be secondary and missing the point. Of course, there will be, most likely, an individual, final AC guy at the very end, a type, if you will, of Antiochus, the OT Antichrist. But the identity of this man is less important than the fact that at his time, the Gentiles will be basically incurable spiritually. BTW, I don't think we're there yet. If you follow my position, i think this modern world that is admittedly in partial apostasy, can be restored by a chastisement, and that they are forgivable, for in large part, they reject the faith because of the scandal of Christian division and times when Christians treated each other in a less than desirable manner.

What restrains is the redemptive action of God in human history. I don't even know what that is. Do you mean the crucifixion? I know Augustine didn't see it that way. Can you pinpoint when and where that idea came from? Was the idea from a recent pope?

[maudman]

The restrainer is very easy to understand. There are two things being restrained. One is a rebellion and one is he whose workings is after likeness of satan.

[vette]

So far we have:

the restrainee was the antichrist whose power was already at work in Paul’s day and whose full manifestation developed as the papacy grew more and more powerful.

Nero was the restrainee

the Antichrist person in the future

It is the time of the man as well as the man who is being restrained

What is restrained is the FULL CONSEQUENCES of the dogmatic reality ORIGINAL SIN

There are two things being restrained. One is a rebellion and one is he whose workings is after likeness of satan.

If the man was not yet to come, why was he being held back as Paul wrote the letter? Paul said it THEN and the present tense of the verb was used. If the restrainee (the thing that is being held back) is a man, it sure seems like it has to be a first century event... what's the average life span of a man? Here is the verse you have to explain if you want to show that the restrainee is not a MAN: "He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

The bible talks about the man of lawlessness who exalts from the temple, so if you want to assert that the 'man of lawlessness' is not in fact a man, you have to justify Paul calling it a 'man' and explain how this 'presense' can do its 'exalting' from a place. I don't understand how a 'condition ' of man can exalt from the temple


I can't find any biblical evidence that the man of lawlessness that starts the rebellion isn't a living man nor can I find verses that say that the man being held back is constantly being replaced.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

So far we have:













If the man was not yet to come, why was he being held back as Paul wrote the letter? Paul said it THEN and the present tense of the verb was used. If the restrainee (the thing that is being held back) is a man, it sure seems like it has to be a first century event... what's the average life span of a man? Here is the verse you have to explain if you want to show that the restrainee is not a MAN: "He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

The bible talks about the man of lawlessness who exalts from the temple, so if you want to assert that the 'man of lawlessness' is not in fact a man, you have to justify Paul calling it a 'man' and explain how this 'presense' can do its 'exalting' from a place. I don't understand how a 'condition ' of man can exalt from the temple


I can't find any biblical evidence that the man of lawlessness that starts the rebellion isn't a living man nor can I find verses that say that the man being held back is constantly being replaced.Seems like Nero is the only candidate to meet those crieteria. Which is why (IMO) he is the best example I have seen put forth. (And even that example has some problems IMO, but at least Nero meets the clear criteria of the text that you mentioned.)

[spauline]

What restrains is the redemptive action of God in human history. I don't even know what that is. Do you mean the crucifixion? I know Augustine didn't see it that way. Can you pinpoint when and where that idea came from? Was the idea from a recent pope?


This is essentially what Augustine believed, for St. Augustine says is the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier, that is, the One who makes holy, so, when humanity has irrevocably hardened its heart against the HS, He will be "gotten out of the way", hence, there will be nothing to restrain the full consequences of sin, seeing as sin will then be incurable practically.

Essentially, I heard this was a statement from a book on basic theology by I think called Frank Sheed. In other words, the phrase I vaguely recall was, the world will end when there is no more spiritual good that God can draw from it. And since Frank Sheed was giving a basic apologetic defense of "Theology for Beginners", one would have to conclude this is the Catholic understanding.

BTW, God has been progressively redeeming humanity even beginning with the Flood. For any man who was ever saved was saved by God's grace, even prior to Christ. Already Noah was obeying God under the auspices of grace, persevering in his love of God while in the midst of derision. Already, Abraham believed God and cooperated with God, excercising holieness of heroic virtue even before the Sacraments. It was the future merits of Christ that enabled King David to be forgiven after his mortal sins of adultery and murder. For God is outside of time and space. He is eternally present to both His Crucixiion and His Resurrection. SO then, God the Eternal Son could have mercy on David not because of animal sacrifices but by reaching forward and applying the infinites merits of the Christ Salvation. Admittedly, David would remain in Sheol until Christ's Resurrection, but it is Christ's death that ultimately paid the price for his sins, which could never atoned for by animal sacrices, or even by David himself.

How much more so is God continuing to redeem humanity in the age of the Church. For at Pentecost, He poured out in abundance sanctifying grace, and the gifts of the Spirit upon Our Lady and the Apostles. For God brought the Church out of pagan persecution into the kingdom of Catholic Christendom.

But eventually, God will give to the Gentiles the fullness of His Grace and Truth, completing doctrinal development. And when the Gentiles fall away after that era, there will nothing more that God can do for them. For Catholicism represents the fullness of all truth and grace that God can give the human race in history. Beyond that, there is only the eternal union of the Beatific Vision. So when humanity rejects Catholicism the final time, the world must end, because there is nothing more to give.

hence, again, in Hebrews six, once the fullness of redemption is tasted in this world, a subsequent apostasy is incurable.

Don't know if this helps?

[eschaton]

This is essentially what Augustine believed, for St. Augustine says is the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier, that is, the One who makes holy, so, when humanity has irrevocably hardened its heart against the HS, He will be "gotten out of the way", hence, there will be nothing to restrain the full consequences of sin, seeing as sin will then be incurable practically.

Essentially, I heard this was a statement from a book on basic theology by I think called Frank Sheed. In other words, the phrase I vaguely recall was, the world will end when there is no more spiritual good that God can draw from it. And since Frank Sheed was giving a basic apologetic defense of "Theology for Beginners", one would have to conclude this is the Catholic understanding.

BTW, God has been progressively redeeming humanity even beginning with the Flood. For any man who was ever saved was saved by God's grace, even prior to Christ. Already Noah was obeying God under the auspices of grace, persevering in his love of God while in the midst of derision. Already, Abraham believed God and cooperated with God, excercising holieness of heroic virtue even before the Sacraments. It was the future merits of Christ that enabled King David to be forgiven after his mortal sins of adultery and murder. For God is outside of time and space. He is eternally present to both His Crucixiion and His Resurrection. SO then, God the Eternal Son could have mercy on David not because of animal sacrifices but by reaching forward and applying the infinites merits of the Christ Salvation. Admittedly, David would remain in Sheol until Christ's Resurrection, but it is Christ's death that ultimately paid the price for his sins, which could never atoned for by animal sacrices, or even by David himself.

How much more so is God continuing to redeem humanity in the age of the Church. For at Pentecost, He poured out in abundance sanctifying grace, and the gifts of the Spirit upon Our Lady and the Apostles. For God brought the Church out of pagan persecution into the kingdom of Catholic Christendom.

But eventually, God will give to the Gentiles the fullness of His Grace and Truth, completing doctrinal development. And when the Gentiles fall away after that era, there will nothing more that God can do for them. For Catholicism represents the fullness of all truth and grace that God can give the human race in history. Beyond that, there is only the eternal union of the Beatific Vision. So when humanity rejects Catholicism the final time, the world must end, because there is nothing more to give.

hence, again, in Hebrews six, once the fullness of redemption is tasted in this world, a subsequent apostasy is incurable.

Don't know if this helps?


Here is what I have from Book 20, City of God, Augustine.

I see that I must omit many of the statements of the gospels and epistles about this last judgment, that this volume may not become unduly long; but I can on no account omit what the Apostle Paul says, in writing to the Thessalonians, “We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,”14041404 2 Thess. ii. 1–11. Whole passage given in the Latin. In ver. 3 refuga is used instead of the Vulgate’s discessio. etc.

No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate —apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. And if this may justly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him? But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.14051405 Augustin adds the words, “Sicut dicimus, Sedet in amicum, id ett, velut amicus; vel si quid aliud isto locutionis genere dici solet.” Then as for the words, “And now ye know what withholdeth,” i.e., ye know what hindrance or cause of delay there is, “that he might be revealed in his own time;” they show that he was unwilling to make an explicit statement, because he said that they knew. And thus we who have not their knowledge wish and are not able even with pains to understand what the apostle referred to, especially as his meaning is made still more obscure by what he adds. For what does he mean by “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?” I frankly confess I do not know what he means. I will nevertheless mention such conjectures as I have heard or read.

438Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal; so that in saying, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” he alluded to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as the deeds of Antichrist. And hence some suppose that he shall rise again and be Antichrist. Others, again, suppose that he is not even dead, but that he was concealed that he might be supposed to have been killed, and that he now lives in concealment in the vigor of that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom.14061406 Suetonius’ Nero, c. 57. But I wonder that men can be so audacious in their conjectures. However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, “Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,” refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, “Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way.” “And then shall the wicked be revealed:” no one doubts that this means Antichrist. But others think that the words, “Ye know what withholdeth,” and “The mystery of iniquity worketh,” refer only to the wicked and the hypocrites who are in the Church, until they reach a number so great as to furnish Antichrist with a great people, and that this is the mystery of iniquity, because it seems hidden; also that the apostle is exhorting the faithful tenaciously to hold the faith they hold when he says, “Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,” that is, until the mystery of iniquity which now is hidden departs from the Church. For they suppose that it is to this same mystery John alludes when in his epistle he says, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”14071407 1 John ii. 18, 19. As therefore there went out from the Church many heretics, whom John calls “many antichrists,” at that time prior to the end, and which John calls “the last time,” so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist, and then he shall be revealed.

[eschaton]

Basically Augustine's second explanation agrees with my own above. The wicked coming out of the church is the apostasy, the falling away. That's what Paul said would come first. Then the man of sin is revealed. That is the second thing. The first event restrains the time of the second, and both restrain the Day of the Lord. Paul said, "And now you know." It is the fulfillment of God's Word that holds back until it is taken out of the way (fulfilled).

When did Paul tell them before? He taught them the Gospel didn't he? Notice the words used. The word apostasia is used only three times in the Bible, twice in 2Th 2:3. Paul calls him the son of perdition. That phrase is used only one other place in the Bible, John 17:12 in reference to Judas. Judas betrayed Jesus. The shepherd was smitten and the sheep scattered, those who are not with Him are against Him (Mat 12:30,26:31). If we take Jesus at His word, and the scriptures are about Him (John 5:39), then prophecy must follow the same pattern.

[maudman]

So far we have:













If the man was not yet to come, why was he being held back as Paul wrote the letter? Paul said it THEN and the present tense of the verb was used. If the restrainee (the thing that is being held back) is a man, it sure seems like it has to be a first century event... what's the average life span of a man? Here is the verse you have to explain if you want to show that the restrainee is not a MAN: "He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

The bible talks about the man of lawlessness who exalts from the temple, so if you want to assert that the 'man of lawlessness' is not in fact a man, you have to justify Paul calling it a 'man' and explain how this 'presense' can do its 'exalting' from a place. I don't understand how a 'condition ' of man can exalt from the temple


I can't find any biblical evidence that the man of lawlessness that starts the rebellion isn't a living man nor can I find verses that say that the man being held back is constantly being replaced.

Hello Vette

Your observations point to what is seemingly a contradiction and your right there is one. It is the residue of past interpretations in our Minds.

Partially the obscurity comes from Dynamic Equivalences.

Here’s the Truth Of 2nd Thess and those verses


He that now letteth is “””””””how””””””” this something is restraining. It is restraining this man of Sin or this type of Man which is actually many and is growing at that time.

“”Many had come out of the Church”” but they can actually be characterized in a single form “””Man of Sin or the Lawless one”””. He is a man with a rebellious attitude. It was this Lawlessness that was already at work in the Church at the time of the Apostles. They were even rejecting the Apostles and walking away and doing there own thing.

The Restrainer was restraining this Man of sin not because he was holding him back from his sinfulness and Lawlessness by some act of restraining……. Instead simply by allowing him “””””””to be lawless””””” in the temple of God. “””Tares among the Wheat””” They were allowed to Grow among the wheat. This was by “””””Letting”””…… He that now “””letteth lets”””.

BY not restraining the man of sin in the temple from being Lawless he had no cause to rebel. But Once God no longer allows him to be Lawless in the temple those sinful men will rebel and that happened when Rome made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

Because the Roman Christian wouldn’t let the man of sin continue in his Lawless heretical behavior in the temple. It’s just how the Roman was culturally. It is largely “””Doctrinal Lawlessness””” Which would ultimately manifest itself in the rejection of Rome and the Church. The Romans gave the Church Power and when it did the Church started cleaning up all the diverse garbage that existed in the Name of Christ. Heresy was out and so was the Man of Sin.


Papal Authority Replaces he that now letteth.


And that was Roman Primacy and Authority. When God had Replaced he that now Lets that sinful man be sinful. By giving the Saints the Roman Empire or by Giving that which was the Israelite to he that had ten cities he fulfilled a Prophecy . It’s when God no Longer allows his Lawlessness in the temple. Bind that servant and cast him out. “”””He that now letteth is replaced in the temple by he that isn’t going to “””let””” it ( the lawlessness) Go on anymore.””””


The Man of Sin simply had no reason to rebel until something told him he couldn’t say or Do his doctrinal heresy anymore in the name of Christ or in the Church.
The Spirit of the rebellious man was the Spirit of rejecting the Authority that God had set up in his Temple. It is the fulfillment of Daniel Chapter 7, when the saints receive the Kingdom of the fourth Beast.

He causes many to fall away.

He that comes after the Rebellion whose workings is after Satan.

The man of Sin who had set in the temple of God (or In the Name Christ) Rises up and seeks his own Authority or to rid himself of any Authority and exalts that he is right and seeks to cast down the traditions of the Church. But that’s not all He will morph and will seek to cast down ALL that is called God anywhere even the Pagan Gods. He will overturn the social structure. He shall change the Time and the season and Laws.

His words convinced many “””that what was called God by the Church or the pagan is False and deceives many. Toward the End in the Latter day’s he will gain power over the Church and raise up a little horn or Kingdom who working are after the workings of Satan. Wealth, Power he deceives many with false doctrine, False prophets and Techno Miracles and Lying wonders its all the things he (Man Of Sin) has the power to do….. It’s why the Apostles told the Church to Hold to the traditions they had setup.
God wouldn’t let the Gates of Hell prevail. God’s church would be the same from the beginning to the End of the Prophetic fulfillment. Its not hard figuring out who is the Church, but the Man of sin is he that invented his own heretical doctrine and uses the Name of Christ for his own, for his Power. All through out this man of sin would operate and appear as a Christian. “”””He even thinks he is a Christian”””. As Time Goes By the evil gets worse and worse the intensity of rebellion and hatred towards Gods Church Until the Lord returns.

This will be a bitter pill for some.

MDN

[maudman]

Spauline I think that is what your were asking



Peace Bro

[spauline]

Dear eschaton,

sorry, I was going by hearsay. I could have sworn that I read that Augustine is he who conjectured that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit. Does he not make this conjecture? Could've sworn he did.


at any rate, admittedly, in the end, we do not know as of yet what all this means for sure. But again, in either the Douhay Rheims or Channoler, can't remember which, the general interpretation of Revelation 17 sees in the beast the fallen nature of man, which is expressed in Catholic dogma as original sin. In that sense, the footnotes see the beast that was and is not and yet will be again as the fallen nature of man in human history, so that the beast "was" means, prior to Christ , or at least prior to the Flood, the fallen nature of man reigned. But beginning even with the Flood, and even more so with Christ's First Coming, the beast was taking a back seat ,that is, "restrained" from its fullest manifestation, by the Redemption of man in human history. But, again, the Redemption will only go so far before humanity rebels in a manner in which they become practically irredeemable. That then, is the Restrainer getting out of the way. That is, man, in a final and utterly deplorable, utterly insulting and incurable rebellion, will tell the Holy Spirit to take a hike for good. IOW, it is man, through his sinfulness, that will "get the Restrainer out of the way", not God.

About fulfilment of Scripture, I actually agree with you in my own way. Yes, the full FULFILLMENT of Scripture also restrains the end of the world. For only until it is a "all fulfilled", as Christ proclaims, will things come to an end.

But then, why does not my hypothesis make all the more sense: the way of the Jews, in their three ages, as even delineated by Augustine himself, is the way of the saint, which is the way of the Church. That is, only after the Church walks the full path of the People of the Old Covenant, the way of the individual saint, is there no more history left for humanity.

And is not the way of the saint prefigured in the Gospels and the Life of Christ Himself. For consider these:

On the third day He rose again, so on the third age of the Church, all the dead shall be raised in the New Creation.

In the garden, Christ prayed three times to let the cup pass, and only in the third was He truly and fully prepared to suffer everything ("Yet not MY Will, but thine be done"). Similarly, only in the unitive phase does the saint's will become one with the will of the Father, fully willing to endure whatever God calls him to do (which, incidentally, is usually one form of martyrdom or another, that is, either literal martyrdom, or the martrydom of the bed.)

Three times Peter denied Christ, and three times he was reconciled (Peter do you love me? Remember, also, there were three degrees of love here, I believed agape, the highest, was the last).

Three times Jesus spoke to Mary Magdelene, and only in the third did she fully recognize him (only in the third stage will the Jews eyes be opened, that is, only after the NT Antichrist fulfills the OT Antichrist, Antiochus, will the Jews fully recognize the Divine Mystery. That is, Antiochus was the third stage of the Jews, directly preceding the FIRST Coming, just as the NT Antichrist comes in the third and final manifestation of darkness in the Church age, directly preceding the Second Coming). Similarly, Mary and Joseph search for Jesus for three days and three nights, and only in the third do they find Him. Hence, only in the final stage of fulfillment of the Old Way will the Jews find Jesus, and He shall say, "Did you not know I must be about My Father's business? [redeeming the Gentiles in three ages, just as I walked with you as the Eternal and yet non-Incarnate Son of the Old ages, which were also three]".

And finally, whereas Scripture only records two falls of Jesus, Catholic Tradition gives three, and in the final, that is, third, fall, Jesus can no longer raise Himself in His Human Nature, just as in the final, that is, the third, manifestation of sin in the New Covenant, the Gentiles will be irredeemable, unable to resurrected spiritually from sin because of the utter woundedness of their fallen human nature.



Dear Maudman, I'm not sure what to make of your conjecture?

[eschaton]

Spauline,

Your point is well taken,

BTW, I failed to mention that the son of perdition is revealed by the brightness of Christ's coming (2 Th 2:8). Like Judas who was revealed by his destruction more than his deception. In 2nd Th the man of sin deceives and leads astray with his lie. The leading astray is the apostasy. Then the revelation is his destruction.

1. Deception
2. Apostasy
3. Revelation

The deception is the abomination (2:4) that leads to desolation. In the Garden of Eden it was the serpent's deception that led to rebellion and ultimately death.

I don't want to switch this over to a debate about the RCC, but I'm not so big on RC tradition after the time of Augustine. Paul warned that damnable heresies would enter the church, and my impression is that the RCC tradition relies too much on non-canonical literatrure such as the Protoevangelion. It appears that much European paganism also infiltrated. I see no reason for a pope. Even today I see how the bureauracy has hidden and protected child molestors. To me this stems from an attempt to change the Kingdom of God into an earthly human institution rather than a spiritual kingdom. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I feel the RCC needs to be reformed from within. In my opinion they should get rid of the office of pope.

I don't want to detract from the subject of this thread, and I don't really want to debate the validity of the RCC either. I was just offering my opinion. I'm sure RC's won't like it, so I'll go ahead and apologize.

[spauline]

Spauline,

Your point is well taken,

BTW, I failed to mention that the son of perdition is revealed by the brightness of Christ's coming (2 Th 2:8). Like Judas who was revealed by his destruction more than his deception. In 2nd Th the man of sin deceives and leads astray with his lie. The leading astray is the apostasy. Then the revelation is his destruction.

1. Deception
2. Apostasy
3. Revelation

The deception is the abomination (2:4) that leads to desolation. In the Garden of Eden it was the serpent's deception that led to rebellion and ultimately death.

I don't want to switch this over to a debate about the RCC, but I'm not so big on RC tradition after the time of Augustine. Paul warned that damnable heresies would enter the church, and my impression is that the RCC tradition relies too much on non-canonical literatrure such as the Protoevangelion. It appears that much European paganism also infiltrated. I see no reason for a pope. Even today I see how the bureauracy has hidden and protected child molestors. To me this stems from an attempt to change the Kingdom of God into an earthly human institution rather than a spiritual kingdom. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I feel the RCC needs to be reformed from within. In my opinion they should get rid of the office of pope.

I don't want to detract from the subject of this thread, and I don't really want to debate the validity of the RCC either. I was just offering my opinion. I'm sure RC's won't like it, so I'll go ahead and apologize.


Dear eschaton,

I deeply sympathize with you in regards to the mess in the RCC, at least in the global North. In the Southern Hemisphere, the Church is far more orthodox, but in the North, the West is severely assaulted by liberalism. And, indeed, to you, my brother in Christ, I say I am sorry for the fact of these terrible sins of molestation. Lord have mercy on the perpetrators, Lord heal the victims, may they know this is not God's Will, that they are priceless. But so then, eschaton, Jesus however did say there would be weeds in the wheat. Admittedly, the natural human inclination is to say, because there are so many weeds, therefore the Church does not have the authority. I deeply sympathize with this. For Christ warned that those who would give scandal would be better off drowned with a millstone.

But the Church deeply desires to apologize, reform, and seek reconciliation with the priceless persons that her wayward members have offended. But, eschaton, even despite that there are weeds, indeed many, Jesus still wills to mediate His greater graces through men that are indeed frail. I beg you, look not upon the less than good examples in the RCC, look upon those who have proven the power of the Sacraments, the saints. Even perhaps, JPII, who pushed himself to the limits of his endurance, taking pain and suffering for the bride that he married, that he shepherded. Really, in regards to the sex abuse, JPII has truly given us the solution: the mess of the Church is in part a reflection of what is going on in society: human sexuality is gravely fallen in the Northern part of the world. Humanity needs to return, in some sense, the way it was, "In the beginning", when Adam saw the whole person in Eve, and not merely her body, when Adam desired to give his entire self in love, as God made him, and Eve was fully receptive to his love and offered herself back in total abandonment.

So really, the wondrous theology of the body is what is needed to heal not only the mess in the Church, but in the Europe and its children in general.

But I pray we can grow closer to one another in the Lord, eschaton, and I wish you blessings as you seek to know and love God as best as you can.

In Him,
scott

[maudman]

I don't want to switch this over to a debate about the RCC, but I'm not so big on RC tradition after the time of Augustine. Paul warned that damnable heresies would enter the church, and my impression is that the RCC tradition relies too much on non-canonical literatrure such as the Protoevangelion. It appears that much European paganism also infiltrated. I see no reason for a pope. Even today I see how the bureauracy has hidden and protected child molestors. To me this stems from an attempt to change the Kingdom of God into an earthly human institution rather than a spiritual kingdom. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I feel the RCC needs to be reformed from within. In my opinion they should get rid of the office of pope.

I don't want to detract from the subject of this thread, and I don't really want to debate the validity of the RCC either. I was just offering my opinion. I'm sure RC's won't like it, so I'll go ahead and apologize.

Eschaton.

You make these sweeping general things about paganism as if you understand those things. ANd then you cap it off with a news break in the Latest news about Priest and Molestation.

YOu wonder why their is so much attention to a priest because because those who are anti-catholic . And take your pick from a broad selection There are various reasons why Catholic Priest are peraided all over the news.

http://reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html

Go there and have a look and see how many of those you remember on the News.

What a load of horse crap.

[eschaton]

Okay, thanks.

Like I said, it's just my opinion.

[maudman]

Okay, thanks.

Like I said, it's just my opinion.

Yes and your intitled these day's


It's easier to get rich from sewing a church as Big as RCC rather than an individual like a pastor.

Lawyers like their name in Print. ANd they Play on the sensationalism. And People who seek indulgence at the expense of the people that Tithe are not much better off. Blaming God for what tares do is just Plain ignorance. Although it is a tradegy for those involved I don't see anything holy about those who get rich of other peoples sins.

MDN