Man of Sin and the Restrainer

[Guest]

The view that the Catholic Church is the "harlot" has been around for centuries. It was the view of 16th-century Protestants, and is still the view of many Mennonites to this day.

In my opinion, one might just as well say that the "harlot" is modern fundamentalism, or the United Church of Canada, or the Unitarian-Universalist Association, or any other group. It's mere speculation.

Isn't Jerusalem called a harlot in the OT and isn't Israel described as an unfaithful bride. The RCC would seem to better fit an imitator of Christ or a false Christ appearing to be the real deal but a very good forgery would'nt it? I think the RCC has been thought to be the beast not the harlot traditionally.

[Guest]

Paidion,

I don't have any citations from the second-century fathers about Matthew 24 at my fingertips, but I know that the church historian Eusebius (325) unambiguously identified the fulfillment of that prophecy with AD 70.

[Guest]

The fact that the Catholic Church has been seen by many as the Harlot of Revelation since the 16th century does not necessarily mean that it is the wrong interpretation.

Revelation 17:5 calls the woman on the scarlet beast "THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS" therefore there may be many entities that qualify as harlots in the eyes of God also.

I was simply responding to Allyn who asked me who I thought "the man of sin" was. Since I hold to this "16th" century view concerning the Catholic Church, I therefore do not believe that the man of sin is the papacy.

[Guest]

I hate to say this, especially since my sister is Roman Catholic, but I see the papacy as a line of antichrist which eventually the final one will be revealled as the man of sin. I also see the little horn as the Roman Catholic Church emerging from the fall of the Roman Empire or itself the last vestage of the Roman Empire. The history of the Roman Catholic Church and the seat of the papacy is like reading a horror story come true, the forgeries they use to justify the supposed power of the pope, denying justification by faith, changing mary into a virtue goddess herself, praying to saints and not to the Lord, purgatory and sacraments as if the Lord hadn't fullfilled His works on the cross taking onto Himself ALL sin and not just original sin, Roman Catholics being Christian is part of the Body of Christ, The Temple of God which is were the man of sin will fullfill prophecy, etc. these are just a few examples. I really don't think the Temple spoken of is a new rebuilt temple in Jerusalem but within Christianity itself and RC appears to fit the bill all to well. I pray that I am wrong.

[Guest]

hate to say this, especially since my sister is Roman Catholic, but I see the papacy as a line of antichrist which eventually the final one will be revealled as the man of sin. I also see the little horn as the Roman Catholic Church emerging from the fall of the Roman Empire or itself the last vestage of the Roman Empire. The history of the Roman Catholic Church and the seat of the papacy is like reading a horror story come true, the forgeries they use to justify the supposed power of the pope, denying justification by faith, changing mary into a virtue goddess herself, praying to saints and not to the Lord, purgatory and sacraments as if the Lord hadn't fullfilled His works on the cross taking onto Himself ALL sin and not just original sin, Roman Catholics being Christian is part of the Body of Christ, The Temple of God which is were the man of sin will fullfill prophecy, etc. these are just a few examples. I really don't think the Temple spoken of is a new rebuilt temple in Jerusalem but within Christianity itself and RC appears to fit the bill all to well. I pray that I am wrong.

Hi, I'm new to Revelation but it seems to me the historical view makes the most sense rather then focusing on a brief period up to 70AD or a brief 7 year period at the end of this age. I think the RCC was probably the beast in the middle ages but now it's power is severly on the decline. If you look at the beast that comes out of the pit in Rev 17 , that pit contains the nations that went into the pit from Ezekial and Isaiah which are all muslim now and the harlot i think has always been Jerusalem which is mentioned 800 times in the bible.

[Guest]

Revelation 20
1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

2 Thessalonians 2
6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.

Revelation 20
7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

2 Thessalonians
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

In his book, The End Times Made Simple, Samuel E. Waldron (who is an amillennialist) identifies the above parallel between 2 Thessalonians and Revelation 20. (I used "quotes" command as they are quotes from the Bible and not from Waldron's book.)

I wonder if anyone else has seen this parallel, or has thoughts about this?

[Guest]

Jay Adams, in the book "The Time is at Hand," made this observation also. It assumes that the man of sin is yet future, and will arise when Satan is released from his prison "for a little while." If the man of sin has not yet been revealed, then this is a good theory.

[Guest]

Is it possible that Mohommed could be the "man of sin?" I have wondered if any thing relating to Islam could be fulfilled in prophesy. It seems that Islam is a power counterfiet of Satan with Mohommed superceeding Jesus. Just a thought.

[Guest]

I believe the apostate church is highly linked to the man of perdition, therefore I doubt it is Islam. To be an apostate, I believe, you must first have had to be enlightened with the ways of Christ and His apostles. Mohammad pretty much claimed to have a vision outside of anyother influence. He certainly was never a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ. Mohammad actually was a nobody who has been raised up as a prophet since his death. He would certainly qualify as an anti-christ though.

[Guest]

For years I understood the 'man of sin' to be the papacy and the restrainer to be the Roman Empire. I found a some quotes in history about how when Rome fell in 476 the papacy stepped into the void and this led to the doctrine of primacy in the RCC. I also found some references to early church fathers who believed that the restrainer was the emperor. In this scenario the falling away would refer to the paganisation of the church that took place en masse after Constantine.

Recently, though, I've been reading a lot about Constantine. He also fits as a 'man of sin'. He brought the emperor cult into the church and had an image of the Sun god with his face on it erect at Constantinople. He essentially was calling himself 'god' in the church and wasn't even baptised. In that case the restrainer would be the Holy Spirit as suggested by the dispies. Infant baptism was being practised before the end of the second century and the baptism and gifts of the Spirit may have been in decline for some time before Constantine. Idolatry had already made some inroads into the church (as in Rev 2). Thyatira didn't repent of her idolatry and the churches in Syria and Egypt also started making images before Constantine. In that case the falling away was already underway before Constantine and by the time he came along the church was ready to swallow anything.

I'm presently a bit undecided. Both views have valid points.