Jump to content


Photo

2 Thessalonians 2:3-9


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#21 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:33 PM

1240: Eberhard II:

‘With the greatest effort, Jesus also admonished that we avoid false Christs, false prophets who, clothed in sheep skin with the name of Christian and a Pontifical title, desire to rule and deceive us. It is fitting they be recognized by their thorny works, especially avarice, debauchery, strife, hatred, envy, wars, the desire to have dominion, and blind ambition. Can there be a more obvious meaning to these words which our heavenly Emperor prophesies? He can only be pointing to the Pharisees and Scribes of Babylon who, under the title of Supreme Pontiff, we discern, unless we are blind, a most savage wolf whose skin feels as the skin of a Shepherd.’ Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg, speech at Council of Ratisbon, 1240

One hundred and seventy years earlier, Hildebrand [Pope from 1073-1086] first laid the foundations of the rule of Antichrist, under the peaceful appearance of religion, but, in reality, was the first to inaugurate this nefarious war which has been faithfully continued by his successors…

He who is the servant of servants desires to be Lord of Lords, as if he were God; he despises holy assemblies and the councils of the brethren, nay, rather of his own Lords…’ Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg, speech at Council of Ratisbon, 1240

 ….He speaks great things as if he were God and is ever scheming and plotting in his heart how to strengthen his rule. To this end he changes laws, he enacts his own, he corrupts, he plunders, he defrauds, he kills; that morally depraved man whom they are accustomed to call the Antichrist, upon whose forehead is written the name of contempt, I am God, I cannot err; he sits in the temple of God and his domain is far and wide.’ Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg, speech at Council of Ratisbon, 1240



#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:34 PM

1599: Geneva Bible:

2:7 {6} For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: {7} only he who now {h} letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

(6) Even in the apostles time the first foundations of the apostolic seat were laid, but yet so that they deceived men.

(7) He foretells that when the empire of Rome is taken away, the seat that falls away from God will succeed and hold its place, as the old writers, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Jerome explain and interpret it. (h) He who is now in authority and rules all, that is, the Roman Empire.’ Geneva Bible, note on 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 1599



#23 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:34 PM

1676: Henry of Meath:

The Temple of God in the Text is interpreted the Christian Church, by the Fathers St. Augustin, Chrysostom, Hierome, Hilary, Theophylact, Theodoret, and others; also by Thomas Aquinas and others of the Schoolmen.’



#24 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:36 PM

17th century: Bellarmine, Malvenda, Suarez:

‘Bellarmine (1.iii., Of the Roman Pontiff, chap.2) says, "The Greek interpreters and Augustine are in complete agreement in their teaching that, according to Paul, the Antichrist himself is able to be recognized by apostasy." So also do Suárez, Malvenda, and other of our adversaries agree. Therefore, the trait of rebelliousness is understood as being a singular and notable characteristic of the Antichrist.’ Francis Turretin, ‘The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist’, chapter 16, 1664



#25 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:37 PM

‘Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject… states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Viegas, Suarez, Bellarmine, and Bosius that Rome shall apostasize from the faith.’ Cardinal Manning, ‘The Present Crisis of the Holy See, Tested By Prophecy’, 1861



#26 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:37 PM

1664: Francis Turretin:

‘The Pontiffs would have us believe it is a political apostasy from the Roman empire referred to here. But that is impossible, first, because the apostasy is of a religious nature, not political, and second, because the apostasy in question is not one which need be called by a new name, because this apostasy is understood to be the defection from God, the true faith and religion once professed. Paul himself explains (1 Tim.4:1): "The Spirit says clearly that in the latter times certain ones will commit apostasy from the faith."

Most of the Fathers support us on this point (Chrysost., Theophyl., Oecumen., Theodor.), the last of whom calls the "estrangement from God." Augustine concurs (City of God, book 20, chap.19), as does Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 11). From the Pontiffs, Thomas, Lyranus, Alcazar, Suárez (tom.2, q.59, art.6, dist.34): "Although most Latins understand this to be about the defection from the Roman empire, nevertheless, it is more properly understood regarding the defection from Christ," etc.’ Francis Turretin, ‘The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist’, chapter 16, 1664



#27 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:38 PM

1664: Francis Turretin:

‘The Pontiffs would have us believe it is a political apostasy from the Roman empire referred to here. But that is impossible, first, because the apostasy is of a religious nature, not political, and second, because the apostasy in question is not one which need be called by a new name, because this apostasy is understood to be the defection from God, the true faith and religion once professed. Paul himself explains (1 Tim.4:1): "The Spirit says clearly that in the latter times certain ones will commit apostasy from the faith."

Most of the Fathers support us on this point (Chrysost., Theophyl., Oecumen., Theodor.), the last of whom calls the "estrangement from God." Augustine concurs (City of God, book 20, chap.19), as does Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 11). From the Pontiffs, Thomas, Lyranus, Alcazar, Suárez (tom.2, q.59, art.6, dist.34): "Although most Latins understand this to be about the defection from the Roman empire, nevertheless, it is more properly understood regarding the defection from Christ," etc.’ Francis Turretin, ‘The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist’, chapter 16, 1664



#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 December 2003 - 01:40 PM

1685: Thomas Manton:

‘But because he is called the man of sin, here it cometh fitly to be inquired whether Antichrist be an individual person? for ‘that man of sin’ would seem to be some single person. No; he is put for a society and succession of men, that make up the head of the apostate state. As one lion figured the whole kingdom of the Babylonians, and one bear the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and one leopard the kingdom of the Grecians, Dan. vii.,—and there the fourth beast is the fourth kingdom,—so one person that succession of men that head the revolters from Christ. So Dan. viii., a goat figured a succession of kings; so the Assyrian, Isa. x. 5, several kings in that empire; so Isa. xiv. 9, the king of Babylon, meaning not one but many.

So this man of sin doth not note a single man, but a succession of men, a body politic or corporate, under one opposite head to the kingdom of Christ: so the ‘man of God’ is put for all faithful ministers, 2 Tim. iii. 17; so ‘honour the king,’ I Peter ii. 17, series regum. So o arciereus, Heb. ix. 25, ‘The high priest every year entereth into the holy place;’ meaning not one, but the succession of the order; and in reason it must needs be so here. Because Antichrist, from his beginning to his end, from his rise and revelation, till his ruin and destruction, will take up such a long track of time, as cannot fall within the age of any one man, even from the time of the apostles till the end of the world.’ Thomas Manton, ‘Eighteen Sermons On Second Thessalonians 2: On the Description, Rise, Growth and Fall of AntiChrist’, sermon 3, 1685

‘Two persons I find in scripture charged for usurping divine honours. The one, Herod Agrippa, who was smitten by an angel for not giving God the glory, when the people cried, ‘The voice of God, and not of man,’ Acts xii. 22: his fault was accepting what was ascribed by others. The other is the prince of Tyre: Ezek. xxviii. 2, ‘Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said I am God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seat; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thy heart as the heart of God.’ His fault was taking upon him, as if he were God, to accept divine honours, to do those things which would make him equalise himself to our Lord Christ, blessed for ever.’ Thomas Manton, ‘Eighteen Sermons On Second Thessalonians 2: On the Description, Rise, Growth and Fall of AntiChrist’, sermon 4, 1685






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users