End Times Questions and Answers

Well, the first thing I say is, does the text say it's the Holy Spirit? That's the first thing. Does it say it's the Holy Spirit?

No. So, it's burden of proof is on the person who says it's the

Holy Spirit. Do I have to prove it's not the Holy Spirit? No, I don't. Why wouldn't

Paul just say the Holy Spirit is restraining him now? Of course, I'm adding something to it, but I don't have to prove it's not the

Holy Spirit. In order to salvage their position, they have to say it's the

Holy Spirit. For 2 ,000 years, the Holy Spirit is restraining somebody who was alive back then.

So, who was this person who was alive back then? You know what restrains him now. They might say, well, that's the

Antichrist that's being restrained. But, again, they're adding something to the text that isn't there.

I'm a big believer in sticking with what the text says. If I don't know what the text says,

I try not to add something to it in order to make it work. I left you with, hey, you don't have to know who this restrainer is.

You don't have to know who the man of lawlessness is. But, you're told the timing of these things that are taking place.

So, that's where I'm firm on. There are about five or six definitions.

One good argument is, because there's some evidence for it in Scripture, is that Rome was the restrainer.

Whoever this man of lawlessness was, and he was going to do whatever he did, Rome was holding him back.

At least there, there's something in Scripture where Rome is a restrainer of evil.

One of the reasons in the book of Acts that Rome interfered in things is they didn't want to let things get out of control.

You had the Jews, the Zealots, they were always putting revolutions down. They didn't want any of that.

And so, the Roman Empire was a restrainer on the Jews against the

Apostle Paul. They intervened to stop some of this stuff. So, it's just, it doesn't say that it's the

Holy Spirit. But, anyway, that's how I would answer it. Anything else?

I think that's a popular position. The thing about the prophecies having an initial fulfillment and then a later fulfillment,

I'm not sure that is actually the case. I think what you find happening is, in the Old Testament, something takes place and it's used applicationally.

It's not viewed as a second fulfillment. If something happens in the

Old Testament, I can't think of one off the top of my head right now, and I'll give you a good example.

The book of Revelation talks about Jezebel and her children. Well, it's not going to be a second

Jezebel that appeared in the first century. It's going to be someone who acts like Jezebel.

So, that wouldn't be a second fulfillment at all. In Revelation chapter 11, it talks about Egypt and Sodom.

Jerusalem is described as Egypt and Sodom. It's really not that.

Jerusalem isn't really Edom and Sodom. It's a symbol. Then you're left with the other problem.

So, maybe there was one, and then now there's a second one, and maybe there's a third one, and now there's a fourth one, and there's a fifth one.

Where do you stop with the number of multiple fulfillments of a particular prophecy?

The New Testament tells us what prophecies from the

Old Testament are actually being fulfilled in the New Testament era.

We don't have to guess. So, I think it's a guess to say, well, these things could happen again.

I always say the principle of what you're seeing here taking place is what's important, and it's applicational, but it's not another fulfillment.

Like I said, that's a popular view. The problem is, show me in the text where it says that.

Give me a text that says that. I haven't found anybody who does. I know

Tim LaHaye, here's the way he tries to handle it. If you look at Matthew chapter 24, verse 9, see the audience reference, verse 6, you'll be hearing rumors of wars for national rise against nation.

Verse 8, but all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs, and then verse 9, he says that refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in A .D.

70. But when you get to verse 9, he says, then they will deliver you up to tribulation.

He says that's a generic use of the word you. So all of a sudden, and you can trace this, go all the way back to chapter 21 and follow the second person plural all the way through, and there is no indication that Jesus is talking about anybody but them.

In fact, his audience understood it because they said it in chapter 21 or 22, that he's speaking about us.

And all of a sudden, you get to verse 9 in chapter 24, and Tim LaHaye says, oh, that's a generic use of you.

It switches. How? Who said so? Where do you see that? I don't see that anywhere.

So, again, it's these are popular, but they don't have any biblical evidence to make the case.

I wrote a book called Prophecy Wars, and I actually took on John Murray, a great reformed writer, a whole lot smarter than I am,

I can tell you, but he took this idea of, some of it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, some of it refers to the future, but his arguments weren't very good at all.

He just wasn't making his case. Everybody, they're not comfortable with this being already fulfilled.

They have to wait for some eschatological event that's going to destroy our world. And they don't want to be post -millennial.

And bad eschatology allows you to be not post -millennial. Even optimistic all -mills are just like dispensationalists and premillers.

They're going to see, and some post -mills, my guys, they see everything is going to come to a cataclysmic end, and only