When I first started my blog I had some topics in mind I knew I wanted to talk about, such as the head covering which I'd been studying for some time, and the Bible Versions controversy. But while I was just getting started, while pursuing information on those and other topics, I kept sort of tripping over the topic of the Antichrist. Eventually I got the message that God had that topic in mind for me to write about and I started listening to sermons at Sermon Audio on that subject.
The ex-Catholic priest Richard Bennett has done maybe the most thorough job of discussing the Pope as the Antichrist. I was just now listening to this sermon of his: https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=81703213440
Much of what he says confirms statements I've made here about how the Reformers interpreted scripture in identifying the Pope as the Antichrist. It is Caesar they regarded as the Restrainer preventing the revelation of his identity, which today is thought to be the Holy Spirit. Bennett nicely puts that one to rest. He also mentions that his sitting in the temple was understood to be his position among the people of God who are the temple in the New Testament.
It's interesting that he traces the origin of the Pope as Anticrhist to a decree by the emperor Justinian in 538 AD instead of what I'd learned from Chris Pinto and the book "History of Romanism" of a decree by the emperor Phocas in 606 AD. I suppose there must have been two decrees then. The first according to Bennett established the title "Pope." He didn't dwell on it but I want to note it because it's different from what I'd been saying. He lists many down the centuries who were quite convinced from scripture of this identity of the Antichrist, starting with the Waldensians, John Wycliff, Jan Hus, the Protestant Reformers and continuing through many since then. How the Church lost that once-well established knowledge is something that deserves thought.
He objects strenuously to the last days scenario I've been pursuing here. He is rightly angered that this futuristic scenario has prevented Christians from seeing the truth about the wolves in sheep's clothing that have already come, and the Great Apostasy that is the Roman Church itself. \
The horrors depicted in Revelation are seen as ongoing throughout history, and there is no doubt that we can identify plenty of them, from murdering tyrants such as Nero down to Hitler to Rwanda (which was the work of the Catholic Church in killing 800,000). plus Jesuitical influence behind some modern tyrants and the doctrines of Communism, not to mention the Inquisition which was by no means limited to Spain but ongoing for centuries. It is+ still ongoing in secret in some Catholic countries. I think something along those lines is Chris Pinto's view too.
It is understandable that he would reject today's futuristic eschatology because of how it has prevented us from seeing the biblical truths about the nature of the Antichrist and the "mystery of iniquity." Nevertheless I still think the reasoning in support of the Pre-Trib prophetic view is good, but we have to give up the wrong ideas about Antichrist. What we have then is a final Pope as THE Antichrist in a seven-year period which fulfills the many prophetic references in scripture to the Day of the LORD which is as yet unfulfilled. Daniel's seventieth week is also unfulfilled and it fits right in. Planet Earth had a definite beginning according to scripture, and it seems reasonable to suppose that it would also have a definite end, such as described in the Book of Revelation.
I'd continue to defend the Pre-Trib interpretation of the Rapture, and the general outlines of Revelation as based largely on the symbolism in the Book of Daniel, including the appearance out of the Roman Empire of the little horn we take to be the Antichrist. It is from Daniel that we get the idea that this figure is to strike a covenant with Israel that he will break in the middle of the seven years. The historical view of the Antichrist as the papacy does bring into question the idea that there will be a rebuilt phyisical temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the idea of an Abomination of Desolation yet to come as the Antichrist sits in the literal rebuilt temple proclaiming himself to be God. Since the Popes put themselves in the place of God anyway this action is superfluous.
However, there is another little horn in the Book of Daniel that sprouts up out of the previous empire, Greece under Alexander, and that little horn is understood to have been Antiochus Epiphanes who desecrated the temple with a pig and was defeated by the Maccabees. A miracle in the form of candles that didn't go out was part of the triumph, and it is, a historical event the Jews still celebrate as Hanukkah.
The point is that it could be right to look for a parallel event performed by the little horn of the Roman Empire, which could be the final Pope sitting in a literal rebuilt temple. Although he is already defined as sitting in the true temple of the people of God it is possible there could be a literal replay of the sort anticipated in the Pre-Trib eschatology. Double fulfillments of prophecy do occur. The idea that there will be a rebuilt physical temple comes from the Book of Daniel where it is said the "prince of the people who will come" those people being the Romans who destroyed the temple in 70 AD, will cause the sacrifices to cease. This did occur of coruse when the temple was destroyed by general Titus, so the question is whether another yet-future Roman prince who does this is to be expected. Ongoing sacrifices could only occur in a literal physical rebuilt temple. This is all open to reinterpretation, however, with the historical view of the papacy we get from the Reformers. even if the little horn of the Roman Empire is the final Pope.
As I've mentioned before, Pope Francis arrived with some interesting signs attending his election, which to my mind marks him as special in the line of Antichrists. Being a Jesuit adds to his specialness, along with his radical anti-Christian messages to the world which are even more radical than his predecessors'. If he is the final Antichrist the Day of the LORD, preceded by the Rapture of the Church, must be very very close, because he is in his mid-eighties. That along with many other signs pointing to a Grand Finale should keep us all on the alert.
How soon? Years\? Not many if these clues are right, but a few are possible. Months, Weeks, Days? All possible.
Maybe there is yet time for the churches to engage in fervent united prayer for revival.
