Denny,

You are correct...... what I wrote is rather confusing because I did not state things clearly. What I should have written and which I hope will clear things up for you now is: 1) There is the "spirit of the antichrist", i.e., a general philosophical movement, trend, that epitomizes all that opposes God. 2) There are those who are paradigmatic of this "spirit" in every age; they are many and they are generally leaders, popular, influential, etc. 3) There is a future individual who is designated "THE" antichrist who will all that the "spirit" and the "many" that preceded him typified. In the vernacular, this person will be all these things rolled up into one; the whole ball of wax. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

So, what I should have written in regard to the pope is that I believe he exhibits one who is inline with the "spirit of the antichrist" for he really doesn't qualify according to the criteria set forth by the Apostle John in regard to THE big kahuna antichrist.

Lastly, in regard to the Postmil vs. Amil tension you are going through, I can truly understand because the two views have much in common. If I may risk reducing things down it seems to me the proponents of the Postmil position are working with errant definitions, which they have forced upon the Scriptures and thus end up at a different place than the Amil position does. For example, one of the most important terms for the Postmil folks is "victory, victorious, victor". They are want to define these terms "quantitatively", i.e., according to numbers. The one who has the greater "number" wins; is victorious. Thus, they reason, if Christ is said to be victorious, then it must be that the greater number will fall to Him and thus there will be more individuals in the "saved" camp than in the "unsaved" camp. However, those in the Amil camp, of which I am one, argue that the definition of these terms used by the Posties is not to be found in Scripture but it is presumed and forced and thus the unfortunate and erroneous conclusions of their view concerning the number of elect, the "Golden Age", etc. Rather, these terms are to be defined "qualitatively", i.e., that the "victor" is one who succeeds in the objective he set out to accomplish. In the biblical case of Christ, it was His goal to fulfill all that the Father gave Him to do, i.e., to save all the elect in the world. This He did in His active and passive obedience which was demonstrated to all the world in his resurrection from the dead. Secondly, the Scriptures speak in myriad places that those who are chosen of God are a "remnant", i.e., a small piece of the whole. (cf. Isa 10:20-23; Rom 9:27; 11:4-6) It was God's eternal decree to save but a small number of Adam's fallen race to His glory. It appears to me that this is also demonstrated by Paul when he argues that God's promise to save Israel had not failed but rather those questioning God's faithfulness to Israel had failed to understand what God's promise actually entailed. In fact he uses himself as the paradigm and says that since he himself had received grace as a Jew, that alone shows that God has kept His promise. (Rom 11:1ff)

Here are some of the better books, IMHO, that offer a solid defense of the Amillennial view:

- The Promise of the Future, by Cornelius Venema (see a couple of chapters here: Eschatology.
- More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen (commentary on Revelation)
- Waiting for His Coming, by Lewis Neilson (a few articles at the same link as above for Venema)
- The Pauline Eschatology, by Geerhardus Vos (with an excellent chapter on the AntiChrist)
- A Case for Amillennialism, by Kim Riddlebarger
- The Bible and the Future, by Anthony Hoekema
- Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, by John Wilmot
- Interpreting Prophesy, by Philip Edgecumbe Hughes

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]