Most of us are aware that the reformers believed the Catholic church to be the living fulfilment of the Antichrist. Calvin and most other reformers believed, that rather than one individual pope being the antichrist, it was the system of the papacy that is the antichrist. It is the system that places the pope at the head of the church in place of Christ. It is the system that has incorporated into her beliefs and doctrines numerous dogmas and traditions invented by men which lead people in empty worship. (Matt 15:9) It is the system that has established in the minds of millions a mind-set whereby the church and its sacramental services and all manner of auxiliary appendages are seen as the source of salvation as opposed to the person of Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on Calvary. That 'replacing Christ motif' is the spirit of Antichrist. And because the papacy, the system, answers to every single criteria demanded of scripture, (and no other entity does that, not even the future antichrist of the novels and movies nor any possible future individual be he Muslim or otherwise) I would like to systematically present ten criteria which I believe point directly to the Papal Catholic system as the only possible fulfilment of the Antichrist power. I would like to reason why I believe the reformers were right. As I said, the term 'antichrist' means indeed opposed to Christ, but it is in the manner of that opposition (by replacing Christ)which marks the Catholic Church as being uniquely the Antichrist of scripture. I have decided to put this in the Bible study forum, because that is what essentially what it will be. Not conjecture...not personal opinion...but scripture supported by history and the facts of Catholic tradition and doctrine. This is a serious topic. I do not approach this lightly. I appreciate that these teachings fly in the face of modern popular theology and modern eschatological teaching. May God bless us all as we seek to understand His word and to be better prepared for His soon coming and the stupendous and critical events that will usher in the final days of our sojourn here for this present age.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
First, I would like to clear up a popular misconception regarding the reformers claims against the church they wished to reform. It wasn't solely based on behaviour. Nor are my claims against the CC. Catholic crimes against humanity are the fruits we can read of throughout over 1200 years of unrevised history where Rome has replaced Christ with a system of pagan/state sponsored brutality against Christians and non-believers alike. They have erected a monstrous false god within the Christian community that has deceived millions. Those fruits, the Catholic crimes, are still being experienced today by hundreds of thousands of victims worldwide who if not committing suicide and suffering in mental asylums as a result of the abuse heaped upon them by pedophile priests, are taking class action law suits against the church which is declaring bankruptcy to avoid huge payouts in compensation. Instead of rebuking her priests and handing them over to the appropriate authorities, they dump them on unsuspecting communities where they can continue to meddle and destroy the lives of children. One dumping ground of this nature was the Alaskan Yukon territories where the local native population of the Yapik tribe are still having to deal with the ongoing mental and spiritual damage caused by such ignorant and ugly actions of a church that has never known better. These crimes however are not what make her antichrist. They are but the bitter results of being antichrist, and the evidence thereof, but there are specific criteri that Bible demands that must be used as evidence...
Now Catholics cite Protestant behaviour as evidence for apostasy also, but that doesn't counter specific criteria that I will present.
As far as the crimes of Protestantism, there is no excuse either. That they were slow in learning their lessons is neither an excuse or is it a militating factor in their guilt. After all, they for the most part were simply carrying on what they had practiced previously as priests and bishops of Rome. Yes, it did take time to learn. Although sadly there are still lessons to be taught them by God that is why the reformation hasn't finished yet.
One thing however I would like to add. Many of the anti-Catholic persecutions that took place, particularly in Britain, was done in order to protect what freedoms Protestants had won. They knew full well that if Catholicism was to regain the throne of England, their freedoms to worship according to conscience would very quickly be rescinded, their leaders hunted down and tortured and killed, and the members of their churches forced to either change their allegiances or burn. Allow me to quote a Catholic source which fairly sums up the difference between the two lines of reasoning of Protestant philosophy and Catholic philosophy when it comes to freedom.
"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty' . . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself."--"Civil and Religious Liberty," in The Rambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. ["The Rambler" was an English Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].
Based on the above quote, (and many others I could give regarding Rome's attitude toward "heretics") it can be concluded that while Protestants are in power, the Catholic church would take full advantage of religious freedom in full accordance with Protestant principles that govern religious liberty, however, in full accordance to Catholic principles, if Catholicism were in power every other form of worship would be forbidden with dire consequences to all who resist or stand against the dictates of Roman tyranny. And all modern Popes openly repudiate religious liberty, except that liberty which allows Catholic minorities to flourish. Hence the majority of Protestant aggression against Catholicism was never based on self promotion, but in self defense.
Thus the establishment of religious liberty in America was first a godly principle, second a Protestant principle, but also, a very risky principle; one that many American leaders of old recognized knowing the mind of Rome and the imminent influx of Catholics that would take advantage of the newly founded constitution guaranteeing their rights to practice their religion freely. The fear today for many Protestants ought not be the resurgence of Islam, but in light of the above, rather the majority held position of Catholics on the Supreme Court.
Now Catholics cite Protestant behaviour as evidence for apostasy also, but that doesn't counter specific criteria that I will present.
As far as the crimes of Protestantism, there is no excuse either. That they were slow in learning their lessons is neither an excuse or is it a militating factor in their guilt. After all, they for the most part were simply carrying on what they had practiced previously as priests and bishops of Rome. Yes, it did take time to learn. Although sadly there are still lessons to be taught them by God that is why the reformation hasn't finished yet.
One thing however I would like to add. Many of the anti-Catholic persecutions that took place, particularly in Britain, was done in order to protect what freedoms Protestants had won. They knew full well that if Catholicism was to regain the throne of England, their freedoms to worship according to conscience would very quickly be rescinded, their leaders hunted down and tortured and killed, and the members of their churches forced to either change their allegiances or burn. Allow me to quote a Catholic source which fairly sums up the difference between the two lines of reasoning of Protestant philosophy and Catholic philosophy when it comes to freedom.
"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty' . . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself."--"Civil and Religious Liberty," in The Rambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. ["The Rambler" was an English Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].
Based on the above quote, (and many others I could give regarding Rome's attitude toward "heretics") it can be concluded that while Protestants are in power, the Catholic church would take full advantage of religious freedom in full accordance with Protestant principles that govern religious liberty, however, in full accordance to Catholic principles, if Catholicism were in power every other form of worship would be forbidden with dire consequences to all who resist or stand against the dictates of Roman tyranny. And all modern Popes openly repudiate religious liberty, except that liberty which allows Catholic minorities to flourish. Hence the majority of Protestant aggression against Catholicism was never based on self promotion, but in self defense.
Thus the establishment of religious liberty in America was first a godly principle, second a Protestant principle, but also, a very risky principle; one that many American leaders of old recognized knowing the mind of Rome and the imminent influx of Catholics that would take advantage of the newly founded constitution guaranteeing their rights to practice their religion freely. The fear today for many Protestants ought not be the resurgence of Islam, but in light of the above, rather the majority held position of Catholics on the Supreme Court.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The Roman Catholic system does not fulfill the demands of who the AC is.
The AC is not a system, he is a man, one individual.
The AC does not try to usurp Christ's position as head of the church. He cannot because he is not revealed until the church is raptured.
The temple will be in Jerusalem, which is Israel, not church.
He is the little horn that rises out of the beast of Greece. Greece, which is part of the 10 toe nations Roman Empire collapsed into. The 10 toes which now form the EU, which no one can accuse of being Christian. The head of the beast that was fatally wounded and comes back to life.
Compare what the Bible says about the AC to what history teaches about Alexander the great. No, Alexander the great will not be resurrected, but the demon in him has returned.
Calvin lacks credibility due to his beliefs and salvation. Other reformers are a mixed bag. But we have to remember that although many of them broke with Catholic teaching they wanted Catholicism to men in return as the only church on earth.
Also to be remembered is that your SDA beliefs, largely from the false prophet Ellen G White, teach a lot of things that cannot be found in the Bible.
But the Vatican is the perfect place for him to be false prophet. Rome is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is pagan Romanism disguise as Christian. It is also the harlot drenched in the blood of the saints is slaughtered.
Rome was also the capital of the Roman Empire and will be the capital of the restored Roman Empire under the AC. It will return to Roman paganism and emperor worship. Failure to worship the AC will be a death penalty.
The RCC is not professing Christians. It is a cult.
I agree it is an important topic.
So on the basis of all that I should retire defeated? You deny the entire concept without seeing me present even the first characteristic? Please, give me a chance. This is a Bible study. Yes, I am SDA. You will have plenty of opportunity to refute what I present once it is presented. Be patient. And incidentally, the very first characteristic does concern the little horn and the nature of its arrival on the scene of world affairs. This is going to be a long thread, because there will be a lot of information to digest. Don't write everything off before I even begin.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Also, as far as being a system, or kingdom, as opposed to an individual, there are good sound Biblical and historical reasons for doing so.
There is much debate over whether the Antichrist is an individual, as it is propagated in futurist circles, or a system. Following is my answer:
The Antichrist is revealed to us through scripture in several different ways. In Daniel 2 he is the mixture of iron and clay. In Daniel 7 he is the little horn. In 2 Thess the man of sin and son of perdition, and in Revelation 13 the first beast.
In Daniel 2 Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar "thou art the head of gold". Yet we know that the gold represented Babyon, and there were I think 3 or 4 more kings after Nebuchadnezzar before the Medes and Persians took over the city. Nebuchadnezzar was therefore the representative of the entire empire, so also I believe is with the ‘man of sin’. Below is an excerpt from a sermon by the renowned preacher and writer Puritan Thomas Manton in the 17th century. Charles Spurgeon testified to Mantons works as being “a mighty mountain of sound theology”
But because he is called the man of sin, here it cometh fitly to be inquired whether Antichrist be an individual person? for ‘that man of sin’ would seem to be some single person. No; he is put for a society and succession of men, that make up the head of the apostate state. As one lion figured the whole kingdom of the Babylonians, and one bear the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and one leopard the kingdom of the Grecians, Dan. 7, — and there the fourth beast is the fourth kingdom, — so one person that succession of men that head the revolters from Christ. So Dan. 8, a goat figured a succession of kings; so the Assyrian, Isa. 10:5, several kings in that empire; so Isa. 14:9, the king of Babylon, meaning not one but many. So this man of sin doth not note a single man, but a succession of men, a body politic or corporate, under one opposite head to the kingdom of Christ: so the ‘man of God’ is put for all faithful ministers, 2 Tim. 3:17; so ‘honour the king,’ I Peter 2:17, series regum. So o arciereus, Heb. 9:25, ‘The high priest every year entereth into the holy place;’ meaning not one, but the succession of the order; and in reason it must needs be so here. Because Antichrist, from his beginning to his end, from his rise and revelation, till his ruin and destruction, will take up such a long track of time, as cannot fall within the age of any one man, even from the time of the apostles till the end of the world. Antichrist is the head of the apostasy; for here the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin are tied together; now the mysterious apostasy could not be perfected in a short time.
In this sermon, Manton, like many reformers before him, was applying the prophecy of 2 Thess. concerning the man of sin directly to the papal system.
There is much debate over whether the Antichrist is an individual, as it is propagated in futurist circles, or a system. Following is my answer:
The Antichrist is revealed to us through scripture in several different ways. In Daniel 2 he is the mixture of iron and clay. In Daniel 7 he is the little horn. In 2 Thess the man of sin and son of perdition, and in Revelation 13 the first beast.
In Daniel 2 Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar "thou art the head of gold". Yet we know that the gold represented Babyon, and there were I think 3 or 4 more kings after Nebuchadnezzar before the Medes and Persians took over the city. Nebuchadnezzar was therefore the representative of the entire empire, so also I believe is with the ‘man of sin’. Below is an excerpt from a sermon by the renowned preacher and writer Puritan Thomas Manton in the 17th century. Charles Spurgeon testified to Mantons works as being “a mighty mountain of sound theology”
But because he is called the man of sin, here it cometh fitly to be inquired whether Antichrist be an individual person? for ‘that man of sin’ would seem to be some single person. No; he is put for a society and succession of men, that make up the head of the apostate state. As one lion figured the whole kingdom of the Babylonians, and one bear the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and one leopard the kingdom of the Grecians, Dan. 7, — and there the fourth beast is the fourth kingdom, — so one person that succession of men that head the revolters from Christ. So Dan. 8, a goat figured a succession of kings; so the Assyrian, Isa. 10:5, several kings in that empire; so Isa. 14:9, the king of Babylon, meaning not one but many. So this man of sin doth not note a single man, but a succession of men, a body politic or corporate, under one opposite head to the kingdom of Christ: so the ‘man of God’ is put for all faithful ministers, 2 Tim. 3:17; so ‘honour the king,’ I Peter 2:17, series regum. So o arciereus, Heb. 9:25, ‘The high priest every year entereth into the holy place;’ meaning not one, but the succession of the order; and in reason it must needs be so here. Because Antichrist, from his beginning to his end, from his rise and revelation, till his ruin and destruction, will take up such a long track of time, as cannot fall within the age of any one man, even from the time of the apostles till the end of the world. Antichrist is the head of the apostasy; for here the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin are tied together; now the mysterious apostasy could not be perfected in a short time.
In this sermon, Manton, like many reformers before him, was applying the prophecy of 2 Thess. concerning the man of sin directly to the papal system.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The one major change since the reformers is the hermeneutic used in understanding prophecy. You are a dyed in the wool futurist, and you are welcome to use that hermeneutic if you wish. If it suits you, and it makes sense to you, then by all means go for it. Just be aware of the fact that futurism as a hermeneutic did not evolve until the time of the counter reformation. The reformers were historicistys, as were the early church fathers, as was Jesus Himself. (See Mark 13:29; Luke 21:28,31; John 13:19;14:29.)
I choose to use historicism. That is the hermeneutic through which I will be presenting the following study. By arguing with me from your perspective that I am wrong and you correct, is like arguing the difference between apples and pomegranates. You have your opinion as to how futurism best suits your understanding of prophecy, I am going to present mine, but from a completely different perspective...and it does fit history, and it does fit prophecy, if you use the historicist hermeneutic. You cannot argue with my conclusions from a futurist perspective. Let us debate the pros and cons between futurism and preterism and historicism if you like, but that is another topic entirely. The following evidence for the CC as being the antichrist is correct, from an historicist hermeneutic. If you look at my presentation from a futurist hermeneutic, then of course, it is going to look all wonky and out of place. What I suggest is however that you try looking at things from my perspective. Then you may see things you have never considered before. That is what discussion is all about. We look at other's perspectives, how they read scripture, try and understand where they are coming from, then judge accordingly. What we do not do is judge prior to them even presenting their case based on their church membership or your own personal tradition and opinion.
I once was a futurist. Hal Lindsay's The Late Great Planet Earth was to me like a second Bible. That was a long time ago. I have learned much since then, and having a Catholic background I more fully appreciate the reformers' views, and believe historicism, for me, is the more logical and reasonable hermeneutic to use particularly in identifying the Antichrist.
I choose to use historicism. That is the hermeneutic through which I will be presenting the following study. By arguing with me from your perspective that I am wrong and you correct, is like arguing the difference between apples and pomegranates. You have your opinion as to how futurism best suits your understanding of prophecy, I am going to present mine, but from a completely different perspective...and it does fit history, and it does fit prophecy, if you use the historicist hermeneutic. You cannot argue with my conclusions from a futurist perspective. Let us debate the pros and cons between futurism and preterism and historicism if you like, but that is another topic entirely. The following evidence for the CC as being the antichrist is correct, from an historicist hermeneutic. If you look at my presentation from a futurist hermeneutic, then of course, it is going to look all wonky and out of place. What I suggest is however that you try looking at things from my perspective. Then you may see things you have never considered before. That is what discussion is all about. We look at other's perspectives, how they read scripture, try and understand where they are coming from, then judge accordingly. What we do not do is judge prior to them even presenting their case based on their church membership or your own personal tradition and opinion.
I once was a futurist. Hal Lindsay's The Late Great Planet Earth was to me like a second Bible. That was a long time ago. I have learned much since then, and having a Catholic background I more fully appreciate the reformers' views, and believe historicism, for me, is the more logical and reasonable hermeneutic to use particularly in identifying the Antichrist.
True. But (a) they were not really focused on Bible prophecy, (b) they had not fully discarded all the false notions of the RCC such as Amillennialism, and (3) they had already accepted Replacement Theology as true, since the Jews were a despised minority at that time. At the same time we can all agree that the RCC expresses the spirit of the Antichrist in many ways.
However, simply looking at one verse in Scripture about the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, is sufficient to tell us that the Antichrist is a satanically controlled (or possessed) man who is a Jew. He may have an entire religious system at his disposal, but he calls the shots (with the full backing of Satan). He has many names and titles, but he presents himself IN OPPOSITION TO AND IN PLACE OF Christ. Hence the Antichrist.
I see you are on a similar track to myself. However, in order to accept that reasoning, we would have to discard almost everything else that scripture presents in identifying the Antichrist.
There are more, but I am going to deal explicitly with ten criteria identifying Antichrist. Those ten in order that I will address, are as follows and the first 4 from this verse: Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
From 2 Thessalonians 2:3 we read
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
from which we can understand that the
- Arises out of pagan Rome.
- Arises after the ten horns 7 of which survived to make up modern western Europe.
- Arises among those horns
- Had a major hand in displacing or uprooting 3 of them.
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
- Speaks blasphemy
- Persecutes the saints.
- Thinks to change times.
- Thinks to change laws.
- Rules for a certain time period.
From 2 Thessalonians 2:3 we read
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
from which we can understand that the
- Antichrist/man of sin/son of perdition arises only after he removal of a certain power which was restraining it.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
@brakelite have you ever heard of a man named Rob Conrad? I was very into his site Heisnear.com :: Crucial End Time Insight I wondered if you have heard of him. Lots of interesting and up to date stuff...well, usually up to date...haven't gotten on the site in a while.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
I have also read, been taught...that the Antichrist will be very well loved and widely known...hmmmm...how can ANYBODY think that could apply to Muslims?
Thanks for sharing this @brakelite. Here's an idea Augustine (354-430 AD) mentioned about who the Antichrist might be. Where Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4;
“[Man of sin] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in [Greek = as] the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) (KJV 1900)
Instead of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, he would sit as the temple of God. Which of course is what the Papacy claims for itself. The Papacy claims to be the one true church. The Church = God's temple in the NT.
Says Augustine; "Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.1405"
NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
As you pointed out, most Reformation era churches claimed the Papacy is Antichrist including many post reformation churches including early Baptists, SDA and Methodists.
“[Man of sin] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in [Greek = as] the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) (KJV 1900)
Instead of the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, he would sit as the temple of God. Which of course is what the Papacy claims for itself. The Papacy claims to be the one true church. The Church = God's temple in the NT.
Says Augustine; "Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not “in the temple of God,” but “for” or “as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church.1405"
NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
As you pointed out, most Reformation era churches claimed the Papacy is Antichrist including many post reformation churches including early Baptists, SDA and Methodists.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
Nancy
Well-Known Member
More than that Nancy. If you read carefully ...okay, I guess here we are going into another criteria, only this one is still future so cannot be corroborated by history as my 10 above....anyway, read Revelation 13:14 and it says regarding the second beast, that "they should make an image to the [first] beast" . Now the "they" spoken of here are the people. Here is a beast...a state power...asking the people to make an image. This is a democratic decision here. The government , at least this government, cannot make the decision on its own. It needs the people's approval, and because the "image" means a change in the constitution (the original beast is a union of church and state aka the Papacy) this second beast cannot become a union of church and state without the peoples' vote in repudiating the constitution of the state which denies any meddling with the church. Yes Nancy, I believe that second beast is the USA. Can we today imagine the US changing its constitution in order to establish a union of church and state? Can we imagine the American people approving of this, even welcoming it? An image of the Antichrist resulting in the implementation of the mark of the Antichrist? Yep Nancy, this has nothing to do with Muslims.
Aaaaah, you are back from your sojourn into the wilds of the American west? I trust it was a successful trip and you are in good heart and the family all well?
As for tomorrow, well, here in Australia, tomorrow has already arrived. You are running late my friend. I shall give you time to catch up.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
truck's been packed since Wed lol, waiting on the women now.
do you get the symbolism of worm, bl?
Similar threads
