4 replies to this topic

[Kilsally]

Forwarded message.......


For further discussion:

Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): "Luther ... proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy ... And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome." Taken from J. H. Merle D'aubigne's History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.

Based on prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.

John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks."
The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God." Taken from Philip Schaff's, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): "The oracles of God foretold the
rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.

John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.

A Great Cloud of Witnesses: "Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist." Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

--------

Historicists believe all Popes to have been antichrists. This was the prevailing view from Luther's time until circa mid 1800's, when a theory that the AntiChrist would be a world leader who would emerge at some point in the future became popular (this theory originates in 1585 with a Jesuit named Ribera, and was adopted and popularised in the 19th Century by the likes of J.N. Darby and C.I.Schofield)

The "futurist" view is very prominent among evangelicals today.

A more balanced view is held by a few Messianic Jews I've spoken to, who see Bible prophecy as a series of recurring themes which are fulfilled over and over again, until the final ultimate fulfilment.

Some of them view the Pope(s) as forms/types/forerunners of Antichrist - but also believe that there will be one final, ultimate AntiChrist.

This interpretation of recurring fulfilments is (I'm told) a very Hebrew/Jewish way of viewing the Bible, contrasting with the typical Western/Hellenistic view which usually opts for a one-off fulfilment of prophecy.

[Admin-SI]

“Mrs. Prest was found guilty of heresy by the Roman Catholic Bishop Turberville, then burned at Exeter, in 1558:



“I will rather die than do any worship to that foul idol, which in your Mass you make a god…… If denying to worship that bready god be my martyrdom, I will suffer it with all my heart…. Upon Sundays and holy days I made excuses not to go to the popish church…but God gave me grace to go to the true church. Not your popish church, full of idols and abominations, but where three or four are gathered together in the name of God, to that church will I go, as long as I live…. Let [the Sacred Host] be your god, it shall not be mine; for my Saviour sitteth on the right hand of God, and doth pray for me. And to make that sacramental bread, instituted for a remembrance, the very body of Christ, and to worship it, is very foolishness and devilish deceit.”



[Then stepped forth an old friar and asked her what she said of the holy pope.]



“I say that he is Antichrist and the devil."



[Then they all laughed.]



“Nay, you have more need to weep than to laugh, and to be sorry that you were born, to be the chaplains of that whore of Babylon; I defy him and all his falsehood.”



[Then the bishop said the devil did lead her.]



"No, my lord, it is the Spirit of God which leadeth me, and which called me in my bed, and at midnight opened his truth to me."



[Then there was a great shout and laughing among the priests and others.] (John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. 8, pp. 497-503.)



John Clark, the early reformer and Martyr of Jesus Christ, testified against the Papal Antichrist in writing in 1524:



“In the year 1524, at a town in France, called Melden, one John Clark set up a bill on the church door, wherein he called the pope Antichrist. For this offence he was repeatedly whipped, and then branded on the forehead. Going afterward to Mentz, in Lorraine, he demolished some images, for which he had his right hand and nose cut off, and his arms and breast torn with pincers. He sustained these cruelties with amazing fortitude, and was even sufficiently cool to sing the One hundredth and fifteenth Psalm, which expressly forbids idolatry; after which he was thrown into the fire, and burnt to ashes.” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Chapter 4)



Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, Martyr of Jesus Christ, killed for Christ’s sake in 1555:



“And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy, and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Whitaker House edition, 1981, page 385.)



Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of Rochester and of London, martyred for Christ’s sake in 1555:



“The see is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed.  And for the same causes this see (of Rome) at this day is the same which St. John calleth in his Revelation “Babylon” or “the whore of Babylon,” and “spiritual Sodom and Egypt,” “the mother of fornications and of the abominations upon the earth.” (Farewell Letter, in Works of Bishop Ridley, p.415. Parker Ed.)



John Bradford, Prebendary of St. Paul's, and Martyr, A.D. 1555:



“Moreover, we certify your honours, that since your said unplacing of Christ's true religion and true service, and placing in the room thereof antichrist's Romish superstition, heresy, and idolatry, all the true preachers have been removed and punished” (from the Writings of Rev. John Bradford).



From a letter from John Bradford after his condemnation:



“This word of God, written by the prophets and apostles, and contained in the canonical books of the holy Bible, I do believe to contain plentifully all things necessary to salvation, so that nothing, as necessary to salvation, ought to be added thereto. And therefore neither the Church of Christ, nor any of his congregations, ought to be burdened with any other doctrine, that that which here-out has its foundation and ground. In testimony of this faith, I render and give my life, being condemned, as well for not acknowledging the antichrist of Rome to be Christ's vice-general and supreme head of the catholic and universal church, here or elsewhere upon earth. As for denying the horrible and idolatrous doctrine of transubstantiation, and Christ's real, corporeal, and carnal presence in his supper, under the forms and accidents, (or appearance,) of bread and wine.” (John Bradford, Last farewell to the City of London)

[Admin-SI]

http://www.baptistfire.com/articles/politi.../bobjones.shtml

Commentary: Feb. 28, 2000

The media has made much political hay this election year over Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush's visit to the campus of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina. Bush has come under fire from the media and from other candidates for visiting BJU. Founded by Methodist evangelist Bob Jones, Sr., the university is a fundamentalist Christian university whose students and alumni are from all 50 states and many foreign countries.

BJU has become a focus of attention for two reasons. One, the university has a policy forbidding interracial dating. And two, university presidents have made statements which some in the media have labeled as "anti-Catholic."

What about the race issue?

BJU does, without question, proscribe interracial dating. This has long been its policy and was the cause of the university losing its tax exemption in the infamous 1983 United States Supreme Court case of Bob Jones University v. United States.

But the media has not told the whole story. Anyone who talks to a BJU alumnus will discover that the school's policy does not discriminate against any race per se. All races are free to attend BJU. The university has many black, white, and oriental alumni. All races attend classes together, pray together, eat together, and live together. The rule only prohibits interracial dating. Yet despite the existence of many Christian universities which have no interracial dating ban, students of all races voluntarily attend BJU knowing the rule exists.

BJU believes its rule against interracial dating is supported by the Bible. We disagree with BJU, but right or wrong, it is a belief they sincerely hold.

So you disagree with BJU -- what's the problem then?

We are deeply troubled when politicians rebuke Christian organizations regarding sincerely held religious beliefs.

Permitting a politician to question BJU's beliefs will only lead to a path where the Federal government will start telling churches which part of the Bible is "acceptable" to believe and which part is not. Government should not attempt to instruct a Christian organization as to what is, and what is not, an acceptable belief. The Federal government has no business deciding if BJU's sincerely held beliefs are valid.

America has already arrived to the time when politicians are saying that Baptists should not evangelize. In the near future, preaching against sin may land a preacher in jail for hate crimes. And if the government holds that BJU cannot ban interracial dating, what's to prevent them from holding that a Christian school cannot ban homosexual dating? Or for that matter, what's to prevent the government from holding that a church cannot ban homosexual deacons? Or female deacons? Either way, the law in America is now that if the Feds don't agree with your sincerely held religious beliefs, you may lose your tax exempt status. And soon, if some politicians have their way, religious based disagreements over government policies may secure you a criminal record and cost you your freedom.

What about the Catholic statements?

The allegations of BJU's "anti-Catholic" bias stem from statements apparently made by BJU officials saying that the Pope was the Antichrist, or that the Catholic church was a "cult," or something of that nature. John McCain’s campaign used these statements in scripted phone calls to Catholic voters in Michigan. The callers were informed of what BJU officials said and then told about George W. Bush’s visit to the university.

While attempting to look "tolerant" and appeal to Catholic voters, the actions of the McCain campaign instead were a direct attack on the beliefs of every Baptist and Protestant church in America. Why? Because the founders and early leaders of these churches said almost the same things as BJU leaders!

Consider:

    MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546, Lutheran): "We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist ... personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist."

    JOHN KNOX (1505-1572, Presbyterian): "I no more doubt but that it [the Roman Church] is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the Pope, to be that man of sin of whom the apostle speaketh."

    JOHN WESLEY (1703-1791, Methodist): "He [the Pope] is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin ... And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition ...."

    ROGER WILLIAMS (1603-1684, Baptist): [The Pope is] "the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself ... speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2)."

    C. I. SCOFIELD (1843-1921, Congregationalist and editor of The Scofield Reference Bible, for years the world's best selling reference Bible): "Two 'Babylons' are to be distinguished in the Revelation: ecclesiastical babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political babylon, which is the Beast's confederated empire ...."

So while the media and John McCain paint BJU as some sort of terrible anti-Catholic monster, it would seem that BJU is merely an institution which holds to historic Protestant beliefs. In the 21st century, are traditional Protestants and Baptists somehow anti-American? We hope not, as an overwhelming majority of America's founding fathers were Protestant!

Attacks on BJU over Catholic statements should be seen for exactly what they are: an attack over what is, and what is not, an acceptable religious belief. These attacks go to the very heart of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion and the freedom to exercise religion.

Why the hypocrisy?

One thing that strikes us as odd during this whole fiasco is the disgust by the media and McCain over what they perceive as anti-Catholic bias by Bob Jones U. But has anyone stopped to consider what the Roman Catholic Church says about Protestants? As Dave Hunt writes in A Woman Rides the Beast:

    "The Council of Trent denounced the Reformation and damned evangelicals' beliefs with more than 100 anathemas. All of these condemnations of the gospel of God's grace are endorsed and reaffirmed by Vatican II." (page 89)

So while the media and McCain denounce BJU, the Roman Catholic Church still pronounces a curse on the beliefs of every Baptist, Protestant, and evangelical in America. Where is the media / McCain outrage over this?

And it doesn't stop with BJU and Catholics. U.S. News & World Report is now saying that since BJU has spoken against Mormonism, George W. Bush may be in trouble with western voters. But there was no word in U.S. News about the statements of Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, who wrote that the Mormon church was "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth." (Doc. & Cov. 1:30)

Does BaptistFire hate Catholics and Mormons? Of course not! Do we want to prevent them from practicing their religion? Never! We will fight for the right of anyone to believe whatever religion he wants to believe, even if we think that religion is wrong! And while we don't speak for BJU we suspect they would do the same. As the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the late George W. Truett said in his famous sermon, "Baptists and Religious Liberty":

    "Although the Baptist is the very antithesis of his Catholic neighbor in religious conceptions and contentions, yet the Baptist will whole-heartedly contend that his Catholic neighbor shall have his candles and incense and sanctus bell and rosary, and whatever else he wishes in the expression of his worship. A Baptist would rise at midnight to plead for absolute religious liberty for his Catholic neighbor, and for his Jewish neighbor, and for everybody else."

We only wish the Roman Catholic Church would do likewise. The persecution of evangelical Christians in some predominantly Roman Catholic countries is well known throughout the world.

A call to action and a call to sanity

The unspoken message from all this is that the right to religious free speech does not exist for Christians who accept Jesus Christ alone as the only way to God. Any warning of a false religion and any mention that Jesus Christ is the only way to God will incur the wrath of the media. Of course, the media will give a free ride to anyone who wants to denounce those same Christians.

It's time for politicians to realize that as followers of Jesus Christ, we must speak the truth as revealed to us. To speak against errors in the Roman Catholic Church should not in any way be condemned by the media and McCain as hateful or bigoted, but rather seen as just what it is -- an attempt to warn people of doctrinal error. To preach the saving grace of our Lord and Savior sometimes requires a rebuke against all who would "pervert the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:7). And that ability to speak freely goes to the core basis of any religious freedom. Any politician should be condemned who would seek to divide America by using statements of religious freedom as a sword against a political opponent.

It's also time for the Feds to realize that as Bible believing Christians, we cannot yield to whatever is the current public policy of the day. If tomorrow the government mandates that all Christian schools must allow homosexual dating, we must stand for what we think is God's truth. The government must recognize that it cannot be the final arbiter of what is, and what is not, acceptable Biblical beliefs.

And finally, It's time for God's people to stand up and say, "Enough is enough!" You may not like Bob Jones University. You may despise their views on race and Catholicism. But if you don't stand with BJU on this issue, your church or school may be the next target. Take the time to write your elected officials and tell them you will not accept these attacks on our freedom of religion. Tell them you will hold them strictly accountable at the ballot box if they limit our freedom in any manner. Don't have the time to write? Then perhaps we'll see you in a few years down at the jailhouse.

Other links:

    *

      Bob Jones University Responds: The official response to the media attacks
    *

      Ann Coulter (March 7, 2000): "Any religion that doesn't claim to believe its creed is the truth isn't a religion; it's a feel-good, self-help group."
    *

      Associated Press (March 16, 2000): BJU stands by Catholic, Mormon statements
    *

      Pat Buchanan on NBC's Meet the Press (March 12, 2000) (Editor's note: Mr. Buchanan is a noted conservative Catholic and a candidate for the Reform party Presidential nomination):

    "MR. RUSSERT (Host of Meet the Press): So calling Catholicism a cult, a satanic cult, the pope an Antichrist is not hate?

    "MR. BUCHANAN: No, I don’t — look, they dislike the Catholic — look, Tim, this goes back to the Council of Trent and the 39 articles of the Anglican Church. If you’ve read them — Have you read that language, what we said about those folks?" (emphasis added)

    *

      Associated Press (March 13, 2000): BJU controversy spreads to congressional elections
    *

      Macon Telegraph (March 13, 2000): BJU president says school is being persecuted
    *

      Knight Ridder Newspapers (March 11, 2000): BJU students don't have horns
    *

      Boston Herald (March 8, 2000): Democrats practice a double standard on religion
    *

      Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (March 4, 2000): "Fundamentalist beliefs shape life at University"
    *

      ABC News (March 4, 2000): "Bob Jones Univ. Changes Dating Policy"

    * Greenville News (March 7, 2000)... as long as parents approve.

        Bob Jones, III "asked students to pray for talk show host Larry King. He invited King to pray with him after the call-in show ended, but King replied that he was an agnostic, Jones said."

    *

      Associated Press (March 9, 2000): Clarification - parental approval not required
    *

      CNN (March 3, 2000): The complete transcript of the Larry King interview with Bob Jones, III

    *

      Answers in Genesis Ministries: Inter-racial marriage: Is it biblical?

    *

      St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Mar. 1, 2000): "Devout Catholic" Pat Buchanan defends Bush and BJU
    *

      WorldNetDaily (Mar. 1, 2000): "God, not Bob Jones, is left's real target"
    *

      Associated Press (Feb. 29, 2000): Democrats push Congress to condemn BJU
    *

      Associated Press (Mar. 1, 2000): Senator John Ashcroft, with honorary degree from BJU, rejects "anti-Catholic beliefs and its policy against interracial dating."
    *

      Baptist Press (Mar. 1, 2000): Southern Baptist ethics agency head Richard Land: "There is a double standard here. Evangelical Christians are the last group in America that people can make the most outrageous statements about with impunity."
    *

      Associated Press (Mar. 1, 2000): Gary Bauer urges McCain to apologize over remarks about Robertson and Falwell.
    *

      Village Voice (Mar. 1-7, 2000): "World published an anti-McCain article written by its news editor, Bob Jones IV, the 33-year-old son of the current president of Bob Jones U. Establishment Republicans connected the dots and found a right-wing conspiracy against McCain."
    *

      CNSNews.com (Feb. 28, 2000): "Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, [said], 'Christian conservatives are the last group in America that can be discriminated against with impunity, and Sen. McCain is proving that.'"
    *

      Associated Press (Feb. 27, 2000): Bush has regrets about BJU visit. (Includes text of Bush's letter to Cardinal John O'Connor).
    *

      Associated Press (Feb. 29, 2000): McCain says Christian leaders are "on the outer reaches of American politics."
    *

      Los Angeles Times (Feb. 29, 2000): McCain says Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are "agents of intolerance."
    *

      ABC News (Feb. 28, 2000): “We are the party of Abraham Lincoln,” McCain said today, “not Bob Jones."
    *

      Los Angeles Times (Feb. 27, 2000): "Amid Uproar, Bob Jones U Keeps the Faith"
    *

      Washington Post (Feb. 25, 2000): Bob Jones: A Magnet School for Controversy
    *

      Nando Times (Feb. 25, 2000): South Carolina senator says BJU is 'a national embarrassment'
    *

      William Buckley (Feb. 22, 2000): So what about Bob Jones U.?
    *

      Crosswalk (Feb. 24, 2000): McCain uses Bob Jones U to get votes from Catholics
    *

      U. S. News & World Report (Mar. 6, 2000): George W. Bush's visit to BJU may put him in trouble with Mormon voters
    *

      Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). The written opinion of the United States Supreme Court. You may also listen to the oral arguments presented to the Court by the parties.

[Kilsally]

ADVERTISEMENT
http://www.wls.wels.net/Publications/Theol...tAntichrist.htm



The Pope is the Antichrist -- Historical Judgment or Scriptural Truth?

[prepared for S.T. 323, May 8, 2002]

By Thomas Ehnert

      "This teaching forcefully shows that the Pope is the very Antichrist."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> Compare this statement of our Lutheran Confessions with the following comment of the Concordia Self-Study Bible: "Lutheran tradition sees the papacy as the ‘man of lawlessness.’ But this tradition must remain a historical judgment, not a scriptural truth. Paul’s ‘letters contain some things that are hard to understand.’"<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Then, consider Hendricksen’s opinion: "To call the pope the Antichrist is contrary to all sound exegesis," and he calls it, "a rather unkind judgment."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->

    Is the Lutheran Church being uncharitable by declaring that the pope is the Antichrist? Or is it indeed a Scriptural truth based on sound exegesis? Is 2 Thessalonians 2 one of those "hard things to understand," so that the best we can say is that we Lutherans have a tradition based on a historical judgement that the pope is the Antichrist? Or is it an article of faith which we, with Luther, are unwilling to yield; and for which we, with Luther, are willing to die?<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> The Lutheran way to answer these questions is to let the Holy Spirit speak for himself through an exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12.

    By way of briefly establishing context, we know from Acts 17 that Paul stayed in Thessalonica for about three weeks. From the start, the Thessalonian Christians endured severe persecution (1 Th 3:4; 2 Th 1:4). It must have seemed to them as if the return of Christ was imminent. So they had some concerns and misunderstandings about the end times (1 Th 4:13-5:11, 2 Th 1:11-2:16). In fact, a rumor reached them, saying that the day of the Lord had already come, and that they missed it! This gave Paul the opportunity not only to rebuke the heresy of these false prophets, but also to speak about the heresy of the false prophet, namely, the Antichrist.

    3 - Mh& tij u(ma~j e0capath&sh? kata_ mhde/na tro&pon. o#ti e0a_n mh_ e2lqh| h( a)postasi/a prw~ton kai a)pokalufqh|~ o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a)nomi&aj, o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj,

    Paul urges the believers not to let someone decieve (e0capath&sh?) them in any way. Paul uses the same word for the devil’s decieving of Eve (2 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2: 14). All deceptive teaching is satanic in origin, including this heresy about the Lord having already returned.

    Then Paul tells the Thessalonians why they can be sure that the day of the Lord had not yet come. First (prw~ton), two things had to happen: For on thing, the apostasy had to come (e0a_n mh_ e2lqh| h( a)postasi/a). Note that the verb is aorist. Paul writes a prophetic fact: The definite, well-known a)postasi/a would come. The word, a)postasi/a, is the act of "rising up in open defiance of authority, with the presumed intention to…act in complete opposition to its demands."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> In short, it is the great, spiritual rebellion. It is a rebellion against God and his truth (2:10). The only way to oppose the rebellion is by standing firm and holding to the truth (2:15).<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]-->

    Now Paul, with a simple connective kai, joins the great apostasy to another thing which would have to take place before the day of the Lord. He says that the man of sin, the son of destruction has to be revealed (a)pokalufqh|~ o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a)nomi&aj, o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj). Because the kai joins the two phrases, and in view of verses 10-12, it is correct to say that "the falling away from faith will prepare the way for the man of sin."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]--> Note again that Paul uses the aorist, expressing as prophetic fact that o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a)nomi&aj, o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj would be an unveiled, or revealed.

    In view of the fact that "Sin is lawlessness," (1 Jn 3:4), the sense is not changed whether we use o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a)nomi&aj or a(marti/aj. The fact is that a(marti/aj is just as early, but more widespread,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]--> so the preferred translation is "the definite, well known man entirely characterized by sin." As the man of th~j a(marti/aj, he totally misses the mark; he commits the definite, well-known sin of sins, mentioned by Paul in verse 4.

    In context, we know from verses 6-8 that o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a(martiaj had his beginnings already in Paul’s day, and that he will be around until judgment day. No individual man can literally match this description. But it is common in Scripture for the article to be used generically, to specify a class of people. In 2 Tim 3:17, Paul says that the Scripture was given so that o( tou~ qeou~ a@nqrwpoj may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. It is in the same sense that Paul speaks about o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a(martiaj.

    Then Paul also refers to this man of sin with a semitic phrase, "the son thoroughly characterized by destruction," (o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj). This definite, well known a)pwlei/aj carries both the idea of destroying or causing the destruction of persons.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]--> Perhaps the best way to understand this phrase is to consider the only other man in the New Testament called o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj, namely, Judas Iscariot (Jn 17:12). Judas was visibly in Christ’s church. He gave the appearance of loving his master. But he was actually Christ’s enemy.

    4 – o( a)ntikei/menoj kai u(perairo/menoj e0pi pa&nta lego&menon qeo_n h@ se/basma, w#ste au)to_n ei0j to_n nao_n tou= qeou~ kaqi/sai a)podeiknu&nta e9auto_n o#ti e0stin qeo&j.

    Now Paul describes the man of sin with two present participles, which characterize him in an ongoing fashion. First, the man of sin is the one who continuously opposes, or who is the exact opposite of God (a)ntikei/menoj).<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!--[endif]--> Second, the man of sin acts as one who is "proud and rises up against"<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[11]<!--[endif]--> everything that is called God (u(perairo/menoj e0pi pa&nta lego&menon qeo_n). He keeps on seizing a superior position over every obect of reverant awe, including the family, state, and the law<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[12]<!--[endif]--> (se/basma). Because of these two participles, we are justified in equating the man of sin with another of his names: the Antichrist. He is the one who is so proud that he is opposed to, yes, is the opposite of God and his Son.

    The actual result (w#ste) of the man of sin’s opposition embraces the other part of the Greek preposition a)nti, that is, "in the place of." The result of his rebellion is that he sits in the temple of God (au)to_n ei0j to_n nao_n tou= qeou~ kaqi/sai). In other words, he takes God’s place. Again, note the prophetic aorist fact of the infinitive. The man of sin sits into the temple of God. While ei0j and e0n have lost some of their distinction in Koine Greek, we can’t get around that ei0j. His rebellion is truly an invasion of Christ’s church.

    But even worse than that, he invades God’s nao_n, his holy of holies, his very dwelling place. As Paul said to the Athenians, God does not live in temples (naoi=j) built by hands (Ac 17:24). God’s nao_j is his people (1 Cor 3:16, 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16). Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, so that we might know how much he loves us (Eph 3:14-19). It is this dwelling place of God where the man of sin seeks to reign. In place of Christ’s love, the man of sin puts his terrors smiting the conscience. Paul describes the man of sin with one more present participle. He is one who proclaims, or prattles about himself, that he is God (a)podeiknu&nta e9auto_n o#ti e0stin qeo&j). Certainly, the man of sin is the Anti-God, and the AntiChrist.

    5 – Ou) mnhmoneu&ete o#ti e2ti w@n pro_j u(ma~j tau~ta e1legon u(mi=n;

    This verse is significant in view of the fact that Paul was only with the Thessalonians for three weeks or so. But during that short time, he was talking (e1legon) to them about the man of sin. One can sense the astonishment in his voice; he can’t believe that the Thessalonians had forgotten about what he said. Obviously this was something important for the Thessalonians to know and believe.

    6 – kai nu~n to_ kate/xon oi2date ei0j to_ a)pokalufqh~nai au)to_n e0n tw|~ e9autou~ kairw|~.

    Note that Paul is using the present tense, oi2date, strengthened by nu~n. The Thessalonians now know that some thing (to_ kate/xon, neuter) is holding down the man of sin, or restraining him. But what is this thing? Remember, Paul is speaking in a spiritual context. Since he will later encourage the Thessalonians to stand firm against the man of sin by clinging to the truth of the apostolic teaching, (2 Th 2:15), we can say that the Word of God was holding back the man of sin from being revealed at that time. Furthermore, Christ describes his believers as those who kate/xousin, who retain or hold back in their hearts the Word of God.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[13]<!--[endif]--> This is what keeps the man of sin from pushing Christ out of the temple of their hearts.

    This restraining force of God’s Word would restrain the man of sin ei0j to_ a)pokalufqh~nai au)to_n e0n tw|~ e9autou~ kairw|~. Note again the prophetic aorist fact – the man of sin would be revealed. This is the first of two times that Paul says the man of sin would be revealed (a)pokalufqh~nai). Up until the appropriate time (kai/rw), the Antichrist is being restrained from coming out full-blown. But Paul says that at his own appropriate time (e0n tw|~ e9autou~ kairw|~), the man of sin will be revealed. The question here is, to whom does the e9autou~ refer? Since it is Christ who controls all things for the sake of his church, we can say that it will be in accordance with Christ’s time and purpose. And what would be that appropriate time for the man of sin to come out into the open? In view of what Paul says in 2:10-11, we can say that once the believers’ love for the Word was no longer being retained, that’s when the man of sin would no longer be restrained.

    7 – to_ ga_r musth&rion h@dh e0nergei=tai th~j a)nomi/aj: mo&non o( kate/xwn a@rti e3wj e0k me/sou ge/nhtai.

    Now Paul explains how the man of sin would be revealed. He says that the man of sin has his own to_ musth&rion, his own mystery. While Christ has the mystery of godliness (to_ th~j eu)sebei/aj musth&rion),<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[14]<!--[endif]--> the man of sin’s mystery is described as a "complete disregard for the law or regulations of a society,"<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[15]<!--[endif]--> (th~j a)nomi/aj). In this spiritual context, the man of sin would have a complete disregard for the norm, the instruction of Christ through his apostles and prophets. But this mystery is already effectively working (h@dh e0nergei=tai). Since all heresies have as their source a disregard for the norma normans, we can say that any and all heresies are connected to the musth&rion th~j a)nomi/aj. That is how the man of sin’s mystery of lawlessness was already at work in Paul’s day, as his own polemics in Galatians, for instance, prove.

    As the church’s cling to the restraining thing (to_ kate/xon) decreased, and as the apostate mystery of lawlessness took a firmer grip on the hearts of believers, the way was indeed prepared for the man of sin to be revealed (2:3). At his own time (2:6), the one holding back (o( kate/xwn) the man of sin would eventually "become from the middle," or as we would say, "get out of the way," (e0k me/sou ge/nhtai). Again, note the prophetic aorist fact of the matter. The thing holding back the man of sin was the Word, and the Word is Christ’s. As the one who rules all things for the sake of his church, Christ was the one restraining the man of sin.

    8 – kai to&te a)pokalufqh&setai o( a@nomoj, o#n o( ku&rioj )Ihsou~j a)nelei= tw|~ pneu&mati tou~ sto&matoj au)tou= kai katargh/sei th|~ e0pifanei/a| th~j parousi/aj au0tou~,

    "And then," Paul says, after Christ "gets out of the way" of him who is absolutely without regard for the norm of God’s Word (o( a@nomoj), it is then when he will be revealed (a)pokalufqh&setai). This is the second time Paul says the man of sin will be revealed. In view of the content of this verse, it is correct to say that this is a verse of comfort for believers. So perhaps we could best translate a)pokalufqh&setai as "exposed" or "unmasked." Note that this clause simply describes some future event, which, from Paul’s perspective, would happen after the man of sin comes out into the open (2:7). But then, Paul describes the man of sin with a relative clause, which foretells the final destruction of the man of sin. So when will the man of sin be exposed? Grammatically, it must happen between his coming into the open and his final destruction.

    Paul further describes the man of sin as someone to whom two things will happen. First, the real Lord, the Lord Jesus, will destroy him by means of the breath of his mouth (a)nelei= tw|~ pneu&mati tou~ sto&matoj au)tou~). The verb, a)nelei=, means, "to destroy, with the possible implication of something being used up, consumed."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[16]<!--[endif]--> Consistently, the Scriptures refer to what comes out of Christ’s mouth as being his Word, (Is 11:4, 55:11, Rev 1:16). "The Lord will not go to war against the antichrist with great armament, he will merely blow his breath upon this lawless one – that will blast him. The Word is poison to the antichrist."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[17]<!--[endif]--> By the proclaiming of the eternal Gospel, Christ will declare his own anathema sit on the man of sin. It must be remembered, as Lenski points out,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[18]<!--[endif]--> that the two events of the relative clause in verse 8 are written from the prophetic perspective, and simply joined by a kai. The interval between a)nelei= and katargh/sei is uncertain.

    But Paul then describes the other thing that will happen to the man of sin. Christ will completely condemn the man of sin to inactivity, and remove him entirely from the sphere of activity<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[19]<!--[endif]--> (katargh/sei). He will do this by the glorious appearing of his second coming (th|~ e0pifanei/a| th~j parousi/aj au0tou~). After this ultimate destruction on the last day, the man of sin will no longer be able to work his Satanic skill, his destroying work (2:3). Christ himself describes his glorious parousi/a in Matthew 24:27-31.

    9 – ou{ e0stin h( parousi/a kat ) e0ne/rgeian tou~ Satana~ e0n pa&sh| duna&mei kai_ shmei/oij kai_ te/rasin yeu&douj

    The antecedant of ou{ is clearly o( a!nomoj, the subject of verse nine. That lawless one, that one entirely without any regard for the norm of God’s Word also would have a parousi/a, a coming. But his coming is in a straight line with the effective working of Satan, the adversary (kat ) e0ne/rgeian tou~ Satana~). Given the unholy relationship between Satan and his bride, the man of sin, the Antichrist would be able to appear accompanied by all kinds of power, and with signs and wonders characterized by lying (e0n pa&sh| duna&mei kai_ shmei/oij kai_ te/rasin yeu&douj).

    Satan is indeed powerful. He throws all his energy into promoting the man of sin. So he uses his limited, but superhuman power in such a way that the man of sin may have signs and wonders. True signs are such acts, through which God shows himself to be God.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[20]<!--[endif]--> So the signs of the man of sin are signs through which the man of sin shows himself to be the Antichrist. True wonders are meant to be something that cause attention-grabbing wonderment, so that people will listen to God’s truth, his Gospel. So the wonders of the man of sin are meant to be attention-grabbing wonderment, so that people will listen to the devil’s lies against the Gospel.

    10 – kai_ e0n pa&sh| a)pa&th| a)diki/aj toi=j a)pollume/noij, a)nq ) w{n th_n a)ga/phn th~j a)lhqei/aj ou)k e0de/canto ei0j to_ swqh~nai au)tou/j.

    The parousi/a of the man of sin has one more devastating characteristic. He comes also entirely within the sphere of every kind of deceitfulness characterized by unrighteousness (pa&sh| a)pa&th| a)diki/aj). The genitive modifying a)pa&th| is a)diki/aj. Because of the dik in the midst of the word, this word has the idea of the direct opposite of what God declares as right. Every deciet uttered by the man of sin is thoroughly characterized by contradicting what God has declared as right. To put it simply, if God declares something to be right and true, the Antichrist says that it is wrong and evil. And if God declares something to be wrong and evil, the Antichrist says that it is right and true. If God calls something black, the man of sin would say that it is white, and vice versa. Then, because he has declared himself to be God (2:4), the man of sin would condemn all those who trust God and say that it is black. Unfortuanately, o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj, the son of destruction is working to spread his deceptive, faith destroying influence on those who are being destroyed, or perhaps even those who are destroying themselves (toi=j a)pollume/noij).

    Then Paul goes on to state why the Antichrist is able to bring people with him into destruction. a)nq ) w{n equals "‘because,’ in the sense of ‘in return for these things,’ i.e. the things involved in the power, in the signs and wonders, and in the deception of unrighteousness."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[21]<!--[endif]--> The reason why they are being amazed and deceived by the signs and wonders of the man of sin, and the reason why they are perishing is that they did not receive the love of the truth (th_n a)ga/phn th~j a)lhqei/aj ou)k e0de/canto). Notice again the simple, aorist fact of the matter. Paul already said in 2:3 says that the a)postasi/a would come first and actually prepare the way for the man of sin. All this is the fault of people who were baptized, who even heard the Gospel. This Gospel is the truth, yes, the very power of God for the salvation for everyone who believes. God gave them the truth so that they might be saved (ei0j to_ swqh~nai au)tou/j).

    11 – kai dia_ tou~to pe/mpei au)toi=j o( qeo_j e0ne/rgeian pla&nhj ei0j to_ pisteu~sai au)touj tw|~ yeu&dei,

    The grammar of this verse is most important. Paul says that because of this refusal to accept the love of the truth (dia_ tou~to), God himself continuously sends (pe/mpei) to them a most terrifying judgment. He sends them an effective working which leads to "wandering from the path of truth,"<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[22]<!--[endif]--> (e0ne/rgeian pla&nhj). Just as God uses sin to punish sin, so God uses error to punish error. He originally sent them the truth ei0j to_ swqh~nai au)tou/j, so that they might be saved, because that is his antecedent will for them. Now he sends them error, ei0j to_ pisteu~sai au)touj tw|~ yeu&dei, so that they would believe the definite, well know, perhaps even ultimate lie (tw|~ yeu&dei) of the man of sin. This is God’s consequent will for them. The very thing intended to save them, now takes on an entirely different and foreign purpose, expressed in the next verse:

    12 – i3na kriqw~sin pa&ntej oi( mh_ pisteu&santej th?= a)lhqei/a| a)lla_ eu)dokh&santej th|= a)diki/a|.

    Note the aorist tenses throughout this verse. These are cold, hard facts. There are people who would be exposed to the truth through baptism and through the spoken message of the Gospel. But they are all people who would not believe the truth (oi( mh_ pisteu&santej th?= a)lhqei/a|). In strong contrast (a)lla_), the fact is that these same people actually were pleased by, or delighted in the well-known, definite, perhaps even ultimate thing that God had declared to be absolutely wrong and wicked (eu)dokh&santej th|= a)diki/a|).

    All such people, characterized by those two things that are the opposite of faith, have to face one more fact. God’s own purpose in their believing the lie is that they might be judged (i3na kriqw~sin). And we already know what their judgment will be. They have followed o( a@nqrwpoj th~j a(martiaj instead of Christ. They have shared in the sin of o( ui9o_j th~j a)pwlei/aj. In this life already, they are those who are perishing, oi9 a)pollu&menoi. As for those who did not believe (a)pisth&santej), Christ says they will be condemned (katakriqh&sontai) (Mk 16:16).

    Here is a brief summary of the marks of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12:

       1. He will rise in connection with the great, spiritual apostasy
       2. Then the man of sin, the son of destruction will be revealed
              * the term "man" must refer to a class of people, considering his beginning and end
              * he will cause great spiritual destruction
              * he will, like Judas, give the appearance of being in the church, but will betray Christ
       3. He will be the complete opposite of God; thus the man of sin is the Antichrist
       4. He will proudly rise up over against God and over every institution God has established
       5. The result of this self-aggrandizement will be that:
              * the man of sin will rule in the hearts of people as an invader, taking Christ’s place
              * he will prattle about himself, that he is God
       6. He will be allowed to be revealed in God’s own time
              * something restrained him in Paul’s day: the believers’ retaining of the Word of God
              * the mystery, the teaching of the Antichrist was already at work in Paul’s day
              * Christ, who had been restraining the Antichrist, would get out of his way, so to speak
       7. Eventually, the Antichrist would be exposed
              * initially blasted by the breath of Jesus’ mouth, the Word of God
              * ultimately put out of commission when Christ comes again
       8. The Antichrist would be a working tool of the devil
              * the Antichrist would have at his disposal the power of the devil
              * having signs, by which he can be recognized
              * having wonders, by which he can grab people’s attention
              * with complete disregard for what God declares as right, the Antichrist would be engulfed in error
       9. God sends the effective working of the deceit
              * as the divine judgment of hardening on those who rejected the saving truth
              * this hardening results in the fact that those who rejected the truth also believe the lie
      10. The end of the Antichrist’s followers will mirror their leader’s end
              * they too will be judged because they did not believe
              * they were actually pleased by the wicked declarations of their leader

    These marks are the Holy Spirit’s answer to our original questions. First, is the Lutheran Church being uncharitable in identify and publicly declaring that the pope is the very Antichrist? Sound exegesis shows that the pope identifies himself as the Antichrist by his false signs and wonders, by his spiritual destroying of souls, and by his contradiction and anathemetizing of what God declares to be right. Furthermore, some doctrines of Scripture seem uncharitable to those who do not cling to the full truth of God’s Word; for instance, the doctrine of fellowship. Just because something seems unkind doesn’t mean that we compromise the truth.

    Second, is 2 Thessalonians 2 one of those chapters which are among the "hard things to understand" in Paul’s writings? Perhaps one might think that this chapter belongs to the "hard things to understand," merely because it is prophecy. But that would be a logical fallacy, because then the prophecies of the Old Testament would also necessarily have to be hard to understand. On the contrary, for instance, Herod’s advisors knew that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Mt 2:6). When Christ rose from the dead, he showed the apostles how everything written about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had been fulfilled by him (Lk 24:44). So it is with this Scriptural, clear prophecy of Paul in 2 Thessalonians. He lays out the doctrine of the Antichrist, and in so doing, gives us the marks of the Antichrist, so that, in faith, we may look for him, and then avoid him like the plague. Yes, the same Antichrist Paul predicted, is the same Antichrist we see sitting in Rome today.

    Third, when the Lutheran Church identifies the papacy as the Antichrist, is she merely establishing a Lutheran tradition based on a historical judgment? To say that identifying the papacy as the Antichrist is merely a historical judgment means that one must use his reason to come up with this historical identification. But honestly, reason would come up with quite the opposite conclusion, for even the most sanctified reason still is infected with the opinio legis. Therefore reason loves the role which the pope wants to give him in salvation. Furthermore, nothing is more reasonable than the Catholic system of justification. Papist justification makes much more sense than the Scriptural doctrine – that God died for the sins of the world, and offers forgiveness of sins free for nothing. Reason buys into the pope’s claims that the Catholic Church is the oldest church, and therefore the correct one. Reason sees that the biggest church on earth is the Roman church, and so makes the inference that the pope’s church must be the correct church. Reason is dazzled by the miracles, signs, and wonders which accompany the Antichrist. Reason is appalled that God would be so uncharitable as to harden and punish the followers of the Antichrist. Reason even questions why Christ would ever allow the Antichrist to rise in the first place.

    On the other hand, reason looks at how pitifully small the orthodox Lutheran church is, and concludes that it must be the wrong church. Reason says that it is unkind to call the pope the Antichrist. Reason says that the Lutheran church isn’t even five hundred years old, so it must be something new. Reason points to the divisions in Lutheranism, and compares that to the so-called union under the Roman pontiff. In short, the rational historical judgment would be that the pope is who he claims to be, and that the Lutherans are wrong.

    On the other hand, only faith, clinging to Christ, can truly look at these Scriptural marks of the Antichrist, and then be appalled when the pope matches the description Paul gives. Let’s briefly consider some of the points presented above. Only faith can see how the pope truly is the man of sin and the son of destruction, as he commits the ultimate sin by anathematizing the cardinal doctrine of justification.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[23]<!--[endif]--> Only faith is horrified when the pope raises himself above God and every institution that God has established by claiming that he is the way, the truth and the life.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[24]<!--[endif]--> Only faith cringes when the pope says that everyone must be subject to him, not to Christ, in order to be saved.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[25]<!--[endif]--> Only faith sees the terrors smiting the consciences of those who believe the pope’s lies concerning millions of years in purgatory. Only faith finds a connection between the mystery of the Antichrist already at work in the Galatian heresy,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[26]<!--[endif]--> and in the full-blown ranting and raving of the pope at Trent.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[27]<!--[endif]--> Only faith trusts in Christ as the one who rules over all things for the sake of the Church, even when he allows the Antichrist to rise. Only faith sees how Christ crippled the pope by the breath of his mouth through the preaching of the eternal Gospel during the Reformation. Only faith sees how the Antichrist reveals himself by his signs and wonders of bleeding statues, bleeding hosts, apparitions of Mary throughout the world, and a host of other miracles in connection with saints and relics. Only faith would turn to the Word, and not to these deceptive miracles. Only faith sees how the pope acts with complete disregard for what God declares to be right, as he forbids people from being certain of their salvation – yes, damns that certainty as a sin. Only faith can see that God is still loving, even when he judges and condemns those who follow the pope’s lies. Only faith finally can rejoice over the destruction of this horrible institution.

    In short, faith needs to make no historical judgment of any kind, for it is God’s sure and certain Word that teaches faith the truth about the Antichrist. Even in these days of papal ecumenicalism, faith is not fooled. Faith sees the pope as the Antichrist, no matter how good he makes himself seem in our days. Yes, Lutherans identify the pope as the Antichrist, because the Scriptures tell us that the pope is the very Antichrist.

    Therefore, it is faith – not reason based on a historical judgment, not mere Lutheran tradition – but faith which, on the basis of God’s Word, cries out with Luther:

    Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort
    und steur des Papsts und Türken Mord,
    die Jesum Christum, deinen Sohn,
    wollen stürzen von deinem Thron.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[28]<!--[endif]-->

      Lord, preserve us with your Word,
    and curb the murdering of the Pope and Turks,
    who want to topple Jesus Christ, your Son,
    from your throne. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article IV, 10, Concordia Triglotta, p. 475.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Hoerber, Robert G. Ed. Concordia Self-Study Bible NIV. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), p. 1843.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> Hendricksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of I and II Thessalonians. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Printing Company, 1984), p. 175.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> Cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article XV, 3.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> Louw-Nida. P. 39.34.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--> NB: The only other time the word, a)postasi/a, is used in the New Testament is in a spiritual sense in Ac 21:21.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]--> Schink, W.F. Our Great Heritage, III. The Scriptural Doctrine of the Antichrist. (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1991), p. 571.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]--> Tertullian used a(marti/aj as early as teh 200s, and it is found in all the major families of texts, whereas a)nomi/aj is almost exclusively an Egyptian variant.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]--> Louw-Nida, 39.34.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!--[endif]--> Louw-Nida, 39.1; BAGD p. 74.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[11]<!--[endif]--> Louw-Nida, 39.39.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[12]<!--[endif]--> TDNT VII, p. 173-174.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[13]<!--[endif]--> Cf. Kuske, David. Thessalonians. (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1989), p. 93..

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[14]<!--[endif]--> Cf. 1 Tim 3:16.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[15]<!--[endif]--> Louw-Nida, 28.77.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[16]<!--[endif]--> Louw-Nida, 20.47.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[17]<!--[endif]--> Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), p. 431.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[18]<!--[endif]--> Ibid, p. 432.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[19]<!--[endif]--> TDNT I, p. 452.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[20]<!--[endif]--> Hoenecke, W. Theologische Quartalschrift, 1943, vol. 40:3, p. 185.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[21]<!--[endif]--> Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), p. 438.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[22]<!--[endif]--> BAGD, p. 665.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[23]<!--[endif]--> Cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 11, as quoted by J.P. Meyer in our Senior Dogmatics Notes on p. 167.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[24]<!--[endif]--> Cf. the quotation of Pius IX, as quoted by W.F. Schink. Our Great Heritage III. p. 589.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[25]<!--[endif]--> Cf. the decree of Boniface VIII, as quoted by J.P. Meyer in the Senior Dogmatics Notes p. 168.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[26]<!--[endif]--> Cf. Galatians 5:4.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[27]<!--[endif]--> Cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 9, as quoted by J.P. Meyer in Papam Esse Ipsum Verum Antichristum. Theologische Quartalschrift, April 1943, p. 102.

    <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[28]<!--[endif]--> Hymn 233, stanza 1, in Evangelisches Lutherisches Gesangbuch (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1960). English translation is by the author.

[Kilsally]

ADVERTISEMENT
http://www.lazarusunbound.com/bunk_antichrist1.html
the bunker mentality...

By Michael Bunker
[email protected]
Want to discuss it? Try the Forum




The Testimony of the Spirit Concerning Antichrist





“And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”  (Matt 10:18-20)



April 28, 2003 -- There is a principle laid out in this scripture that we would do well to heed.  It is notable that most bible expositors neglect this series of verses, other than to use them to exhort their readers to not fear persecution.  But I think that closer examination will show us a principle that will benefit us in our desire to understand Bible prophecy.



Let us start from the principle and work backwards to better understand it:



“…it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”



The Bible confesses that the words of God’s true martyrs, as they stand at the judgment seat of men, are to be understood as the Word of God speaking through them to us.  In the scriptures, we are given the words of Jesus as He stood before judges and of the Martyr Steven as he testified against a perverse generation and of the words of Paul on trial - but these are not all the words of God’s faithful martyrs.  Surely the Holy Scripture is our only rule, and the tool by which we measure all things - but these scriptures in Matthew exhort us to heed the words of all of God’s martyrs as He speaks through them to us.  This is not to say that every man who is killed for his belief is a true Godly martyr.  That arch-heretic Servetus and his entire like are to be ignored in their martyrdom as they should have been in their lives.  But when God’s faithful servants, like the faithful William Tyndale, who preserved for us the Word of God in our own tongue, are martyred for Christ’s sake - we should pay special heed to the words they speak on God’s behalf at their deaths, for, as the scripture says:



“…when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.”



So we are to understand of God’s faithful martyrs that God Himself will give voice to wisdom and prophecy through the mouths of those who will suffer and die on His behalf.



The second principle we need to understand, is that these Martyrs, even today, testify to God against that Antichrist.  As the scriptures says,



“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held” (Rev 6:9)



So from this we can see this testimony against Antichrist from under the altar of God is CONTINUOUS throughout the age, until the coming of Christ in glory.  Those who would throw these prophecies into the past alone, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d., or those who would tell us not to concern ourselves with the testimony of the Martyrs, since they believe that these prophecies will only have their fulfillment in the very end of time, need to listen to what the Bible says, continuing after verse 9:



“And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?  And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” (Rev 6:10-11)



This brings in an interesting concept.  Although we know that there is no time in heaven, time being a construct of the creation, we also know that unto God there is a specific number of God’s servants who are to be martyred on His behalf, and that this number will continue to be added unto those previously martryed until the Lord returns to judge and avenge their blood on them that dwell on the earth.  We know that this judgment, spoken of in Revelation chapter 6, could not have been the judgment that fell upon Jerusalem in 70 a.d., because the scriptures particularly mention that the number of the elect ones would include those “that should be killed as they were”.  We know from history that almost all of the Christians escaped Jerusalem (because of their understanding of Christ’s warning in Matthew chapter 24) a year before the Temple was destroyed.  They were not martyred because they fled to Pella on the Decapolis.



In fact we know that the largest number of Martyrs (tens of millions of saints in fact) that were to be added to the full number joined the ranks of martyrs during the Reformation time period.



One other crucial point that you would do well to note:  Many Bible teachers and expositors today rightfully encourage their hearers and readers to read and study from the Authorized King James Bible.  I have even heard some of these teachers go into great detail about how the King James Bible is the very Word of God, given unto us in our language by the Holy Spirit Himself.  Wouldn’t these same Bible teachers do well to heed the King James (Holy Spirit Inspired) translators, who identified the Papacy as the seat of Antichrist?



“…the zeal of Your Majesty towards the house of God doth not slack or go backwards, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed)” (Introduction to the KJB, 1611)



So the principle holds true, and should be heeded.  The word of the Holy Spirit agrees with itself in all parts, that the words of God’s martyrs should be held up to the rule of Holy Scripture - and if their lives, fruit, martyrdom and words are in accord with scripture - we ought to listen to God’s words spoken through their mouths and account it as wisdom bestowed towards us by God.



Let us hear them:



Mr. William Tyndale, who was strangled and burnt on the Lord’s behalf in 1536:



“Now, thought the Bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ these names, [Jesus, a savior, Christus, King appointed over all men, Emmanuel, God with us, Sanctus, that is, holy, that halloweth, sanctifieth, and blesseth all nations,] yet that they rob him of the effect, and take the significations of his names unto themselves, and make of him but a hypocrite, as they themselves be, they be the right ANTICHRISTS, and deny both the Father and the Son; for they deny the witness the Father bare unto the Son, and deprive the Son of all the power and glory that his Father gave him.” [Tyndale’s Works, vol. ii. p. 183 (Parker Ed)



One Mrs. Prest.  This testimony is found in an excellent article by Mr. Rand Winburn of iconbusters.com (in which he quotes from Acts and Monuments by John Foxe) which effectively and powerfully refutes the futurist antichrist article put forth recently by Mr. Alan Morrison:



“Mrs. Prest was found guilty of heresy by the Roman Catholic Bishop Turberville, then burned at Exeter, in 1558:



“I will rather die than do any worship to that foul idol, which in your Mass you make a god…… If denying to worship that bready god be my martyrdom, I will suffer it with all my heart…. Upon Sundays and holy days I made excuses not to go to the popish church…but God gave me grace to go to the true church. Not your popish church, full of idols and abominations, but where three or four are gathered together in the name of God, to that church will I go, as long as I live…. Let [the Sacred Host] be your god, it shall not be mine; for my Saviour sitteth on the right hand of God, and doth pray for me. And to make that sacramental bread, instituted for a remembrance, the very body of Christ, and to worship it, is very foolishness and devilish deceit.”



[Then stepped forth an old friar and asked her what she said of the holy pope.]



“I say that he is Antichrist and the devil."



[Then they all laughed.]



“Nay, you have more need to weep than to laugh, and to be sorry that you were born, to be the chaplains of that whore of Babylon; I defy him and all his falsehood.”



[Then the bishop said the devil did lead her.]



"No, my lord, it is the Spirit of God which leadeth me, and which called me in my bed, and at midnight opened his truth to me."



[Then there was a great shout and laughing among the priests and others.] (John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. 8, pp. 497-503.)



John Clark, the early reformer and Martyr of Jesus Christ, testified against the Papal Antichrist in writing in 1524:



“In the year 1524, at a town in France, called Melden, one John Clark set up a bill on the church door, wherein he called the pope Antichrist. For this offence he was repeatedly whipped, and then branded on the forehead. Going afterward to Mentz, in Lorraine, he demolished some images, for which he had his right hand and nose cut off, and his arms and breast torn with pincers. He sustained these cruelties with amazing fortitude, and was even sufficiently cool to sing the One hundredth and fifteenth Psalm, which expressly forbids idolatry; after which he was thrown into the fire, and burnt to ashes.” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Chapter 4)



Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, Martyr of Jesus Christ, killed for Christ’s sake in 1555:



“And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy, and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Whitaker House edition, 1981, page 385.)



Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of Rochester and of London, martyred for Christ’s sake in 1555:



“The see is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed.  And for the same causes this see (of Rome) at this day is the same which St. John calleth in his Revelation “Babylon” or “the whore of Babylon,” and “spiritual Sodom and Egypt,” “the mother of fornications and of the abominations upon the earth.” (Farewell Letter, in Works of Bishop Ridley, p.415. Parker Ed.)



John Bradford, Prebendary of St. Paul's, and Martyr, A.D. 1555:



“Moreover, we certify your honours, that since your said unplacing of Christ's true religion and true service, and placing in the room thereof antichrist's Romish superstition, heresy, and idolatry, all the true preachers have been removed and punished” (from the Writings of Rev. John Bradford).



From a letter from John Bradford after his condemnation:



“This word of God, written by the prophets and apostles, and contained in the canonical books of the holy Bible, I do believe to contain plentifully all things necessary to salvation, so that nothing, as necessary to salvation, ought to be added thereto. And therefore neither the Church of Christ, nor any of his congregations, ought to be burdened with any other doctrine, that that which here-out has its foundation and ground. In testimony of this faith, I render and give my life, being condemned, as well for not acknowledging the antichrist of Rome to be Christ's vice-general and supreme head of the catholic and universal church, here or elsewhere upon earth. As for denying the horrible and idolatrous doctrine of transubstantiation, and Christ's real, corporeal, and carnal presence in his supper, under the forms and accidents, (or appearance,) of bread and wine.” (John Bradford, Last farewell to the City of London)



I certainly could go on and on, filling books with such testimonies made by the true Church of God against the Papal Antichrist throughout his continuous reign.  I will go into detail, if the Lord wills, about the Doctrine of the Papal Antichrist when I soon take that topic in hand during our Doctrines series of sermons.  What we deal with here, specifically, is the Testimony of the Spirit as it pertains to Antichrist.  We can now consider ourselves warned against grieving or quenching that Spirit of testimony that agrees with God’s complete and perfect Word.  Having now examined the Testimony of the Holy Spirit against the papistical religion, we can now move forward to test this most sure word against the Word of God, using as a firm basis of study our desire to apply Prophecy NOT just to times long past, which ignore the words of God through his millions of faithful martyrs, nor do we apply ourselves only to study things still future (though much of Prophecy lies before us), which succeeds only to blind us to God’s sovereignty in our own day and also in days past, but to apply scripture to all of our history, as John and Paul, God’s great apostles did.  Prophecy exists to prove God’s word, to glorify His Hand, to manifest His absolute power and sovereignty over events, peoples, Kings and rulers.  We will not divorce God’s prophecy from all of history, but will apply ourselves to a deep and principled study, avoiding the Jesuitical errors of Preterism and Futurism, knowing for certain that the foul tree of Papist doctrine can never put forth good fruit.



May God guide our eyes, our thoughts and our words according to His perfect Wisdom.



Your servant in Christ Jesus,



Michael Bunker