I read the entry for antichristus in Richard Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Sources. He gives the basic summary of the historicist position. So here is how I look at it: per timing and structure, I accept the Reformed position that the papacy is the antichrist. I also accept the basic amillennial timeline (millennium is now). The historicist narrative would seem to give it a “postmillennial” flavor to it, given the destruction of Antichrist, etc. If so, so be it. I really don’t care about labels. I have no desire to defend either “postmillennialism” or “random ethic common grace amillennialism.” I admit a sort of tension follows. That’s fine. I’ve come to accept the dictum of “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty,” so I have no problem in saying that this system isn’t as neat and tidy as one could make it. In fact, I would be worried if it were.