|
THE PAPACY IS THE ANTICHRIST
“In the life of Christ we behold the converse of what the Antichrist must be; and in the prophecy of the Antichrist we are shown the converse of what Christ must be, and was. And when we place the Papacy between the two, and compare it with each, we find, on the one hand, that it is the perfect converse of Christ as seen in his life; and on the other, that it is the perfect image of the Antichrist, as shown in the prophecy of him. We conclude, therefore, that if Jesus of Nazareth be the Christ, the Roman Papacy is the Antichrist.” (1) With Protestant author the Rev. James A. Wylie we also say that the Papacy is the Antichrist. This is not a suggestion but an assertion. We make the dogmatic statement that the institution we know as the papacy is the Antichrist foretold by Scripture. Such a bold identification of course requires some evidence. In this confused age the Church of Rome is regarded as the Christian Church by many and the Pope as her earthly head. We say however that although the papacy claims to hold such an exalted position in fact it does not. Rather than occupying the highest place the papacy occupies the lowest place. We say that while pretending to occupy the place of Christ in reality the papacy occupies the place of the devil. The papacy is not from paradise; it is from the pit. The papacy is the Antichrist. In tackling our subject we shall firstly define briefly what we mean by the Antichrist and what we mean by the papacy. Then secondly we shall bring forth our evidence to prove that the papacy is the Antichrist. Finally we shall apply these things to our present day. Antichrist When we speak of the Antichrist we are referring to a figure who is revealed in Scripture as the great opponent of our Lord Jesus Christ. The devil of course is the chief enemy of God. The devil however is an invisible enemy, belonging to the realm of principalities and powers. The Antichrist is the devil’s great champion in this world. The Antichrist is a visible foe. He is made of flesh and blood. He emerges from the ranks of men and takes his place on the stage of history. Our Saviour has many names and titles in the Bible which reveal His blessed character. So Antichrist has names and titles which show his cursed character. He is the idol shepherd, the little horn, the vile person, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the wicked, the beast, the false prophet. The actual title ‘antichrist’ is found in 1 John 2:18: “ye have heard that antichrist shall come.” From this text in John it is plain that we are dealing with a figure who, at the time when the canon of Scripture was completed, had appeared in the Word but had not yet appeared in the world. Old Testament prophecy is generally fulfilled by events recorded later in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. New Testament prophecy is generally fulfilled by events which occur beyond the period of revelation. This means that for our understanding of the truth concerning the Antichrist we must study the teaching of Scripture and we must study the record of church history. We must seek a correlation between the two. Papacy When we speak of the papacy we are referring to the institution which is located at the apex of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The word ‘pope’ comes from the Latin papa, meaning ‘father’. It was first applied as a general title to all priests, then to all bishops as a title of honour, and from 604 A.D. to the Bishop of Rome in particular as a title indicating that he was acknowledged as the universal bishop. Such a use of the title ‘father’ should already give us pause for thought, when we remember that Christ said, “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matt.23:9) There were three distinct stages in the development of the papacy’s astounding claims. 1. A Claim to Spiritual Sovereignty. Rome was formerly a great pagan city with the emperor acting as the high priest of its religion. In the fourth century this heathenism, which had long persecuted the Christian faith, instead succumbed to it. The Emperor Constantine, having removed from Rome to Constantinople in 334 A.D., established Christianity as the official religion of his empire. The Bishop of Rome, already in place and now without any immediate rival, began to receive great honour and status, and survived intact the decay of the Roman Empire which soon followed. While still subject to the civil power in civil affairs, the Bishop of Rome began to claim supremacy over other bishops in spiritual affairs. Yet there was still a wariness. Gregory I declared at the end of the sixth century that whosoever called himself universal bishop or universal priest was the precursor of antichrist. It was Gregory’s successor, Boniface III, who pursued these ambitions further. Five great cities were located within the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. The bishops of these cities were in competition for supremacy. In 607 A.D. the Emperor Phocas conceded to Boniface III as Bishop of Rome headship over all the Christian churches. The Bishop of Rome was now a pope. He claimed universal and unlimited episcopacy. Wearing the mask of a shepherd he held in his hand a staff. But this was by no means the end of his pretensions. 2. A Claim to Temporal Sovereignty. Thus far papal jurisdiction had been spiritual only. But now with unlimited power in the ecclesiastical sphere the papacy began to interfere increasingly in the temporal affairs of nations. This development reached a key point in 755 A.D. when the Emperor Pepin, having defeated the Lombards in northern Italy, placed the keys of their towns upon the altar of St Peter’s in Rome. The Bishop of Rome was now a king. He claimed universal and unlimited monarchy. Dropping the mask of a shepherd he held in his hand a sword. Yet even this was not the limit of his ambition. 3. A Claim to Divine Sovereignty. Papal jurisdiction to this point had been spiritual and temporal. But the papacy was not content even with this. There was another step it desired to take: one so daring, brazen and monstrous that we tremble to think of it and to speak of it. In 1073 A.D. Pope Gregory VII, known as Hildebrand, claimed, as the representative of God, to be above all the kings of the world. He claimed that his reign was but another name for the reign of God. The Bishop of Rome was now a god. He claimed deity. He now held in his hand the sceptre of the universe. Think of it! A mere flesh and blood man, a poor sinner, claiming to be God! It is sometimes said that Gregory VII set up a theocracy on earth. This is not strictly true. Theocracy means the “rule of God.” No nation and no believer especially should fear to be governed according to the law of God, just as the Jews once were as the covenant people. What Gregory set up, and what popery is in fact, is an ecclesiocracy. It is government by priests or ‘clericalism’. It is the church dominating the state and taking control of all political, economic and social affairs. The Vatican is in miniature what Rome would wish to achieve over the face of the whole earth. Succeeding centuries have witnessed the development of this extraordinary claim. In the 14th century Boniface VIII declared: “That which was spoken of Christ...’Thou hast subdued all things under his feet,’ may well seem verified in me. I have the authority of the King of kings, I am all in all and above all, so that God, Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory [i.e. oversight, authority], and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?” (2) In the 17th century (1644) a cardinal addressed the newly-elect Pope Innocent X: “Most Holy and Blessed Father, Head of the Church, Ruler of the World, to whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are committed, whom the Angels in heaven revere, and whom the gates of hell fear, and whom all the World adores, we specially venerate, worship, and adore thee, and commit ourselves, and all that belongs to us, to thy paternal and more than divine disposal.” (3) Now what more would a devout believer say of God Himself? In the 19th century during the Vatican Council (1870), which pronounced that the popes were infallible, it was proclaimed: “The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power...we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ.” (4) In the 20th century (1922) Pius XI declared: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.” (5) When the Pope is crowned today it is with these words: “Receive thou the Tiara, adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World, and Vicar on earth of Christ, to whom be honour and glory for ever.” (6) The papacy is therefore an office which has developed over many centuries, increasing in power and influence until it can almost go no further. It is an office which has of course been occupied by many different individuals. This is an important fact to note when we look at Scripture later. Identity We are now to prove that the papacy is the Antichrist spoken of in Scripture. The Bible indicates that we must have a multiplicity of witnesses if we are to be successful for “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2Cor.13:1) We shall consider three witnesses. There is: 1. THE HISTORICAL TESTIMONY There have been many different opinions concerning the identity of the Antichrist. He is either a politician or a prelate. He is either an atheist or an apostate. He is either a Jew or a Gentile. He is either an individual or a dynasty. He has either already come and gone, is now present, or has yet to appear. From those who believe that the Antichrist is a system rather than a person have come the following guesses as to its identity: Humanism, Materialism, International Communism, Islam. From those who believe that the Antichrist is a particular individual have come these guesses as to his identity: the Emperor Nero, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Saddam Hussein. One view however has prevailed down through history and has stood the test of time. It is the view that the papacy is the Antichrist. This view is not one held simply by a few ‘extremists’ in the present day but it has been the witness of the godly in all ages. And there are also testimonies supporting it from some surprising quarters. We shall look at a variety of sources. Fathers Tertullian (155–222 A.D.): [Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:7 and the revelation of Antichrist] “What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? (7) (The division of the Roman Empire was not completed until A.D. 476.) Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386 A.D.): “There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power.” (8) The Papacy not only took Rome as the seat of its authority, but even took the title of Pontifex Maximus from pagan Rome for its supreme bishop, the pope. Jerome (347–420 A.D.): “Says the apostle [Paul in the second epistle to the Thessalonians], ‘Unless the Roman Empire should first be desolated, and antichrist proceed, Christ will not come’.” (9) Augustine of Canterbury (540–604 A.D.): “I say confidently therefore, that whosoever calls himself Universal Bishop, or even desires in his pride to be called such, is the forerunner of antichrist.” (10) Reformers Luther (1483-1546): [In a letter to George Spalatin, a German Reformer and friend, in 1520] “I am extremely distressed in my mind. I have not much doubt but the pope is the real antichrist. The lives and conversation of the popes, their actions, their decrees, all agree most wonderfully to the descriptions of him in Holy Writ.” (11) Calvin (1509-1564): “Daniel [Dan.9:27] and Paul [2Thess.2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom.” (12) Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556): [At his martyrdom] “And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy, and antichrist, with all his false doctrines.” (13) John Knox (1514-1572): [To Dean Annan, a Romanist, in 1547] “as for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted,...I have no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be the man of sin of whom the apostle speaketh, than that I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible Church of Jerusalem.” (14) Successors Matthew Poole (1624-1679): “I will speak boldly, either there is no antichrist, or the bishop of Rome is he.” (15) Matthew Henry (1662-1714): “the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God’s authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given...?” (16) Patrick Fairbairn (1805-1875): [Having listed some of the chief errors and abuses of popery] “All this meets so remarkably the conditions of St. Paul’s prophecy, and in its history and growth also from the apostolic age so strikingly accords with the warnings given of its gradual and stealthy approach, that, wherever else the antichrist may exist, they must be strangely biassed, who do not discern its likeness in the Romish apostacy.” (17) Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892): “It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.” (18) Others Orthodox: [In connection with a recent visit of the Pope to Greece] “But in the days preceding the pontiff’s arrival in Greece, the rank-and-file Orthodox clerical union denounced him as an ‘arch-heretic’ and the ‘two-horned grotesque monster of Rome’.” (Rod Dreher, a columnist at the New York Post, 8/5/01). Some went even further. At a monastery on Mount Athos, a community of Orthodox monks hung a banner from the monastery walls proclaiming “The Pope is antichrist.” (19) “The trepidation that we Greek Orthodox have as regards the Latin papacy stems from that institution’s serious deviations from the Apostolic Faith and its historic role in attempting to force these deviations onto the Orthodox Christian world, i.e. Croatian Cardinal Stepinac and his Nazi Ustasha forcibly converting thousands of Orthodox Serbians to Catholicism and massacring the thousands who refused. Cardinal Stepinac has recently been beatified by John Paul II.” (20) Romanist: [Cardinal Manning] “The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the Kingdom of the Son of God.” (21) [John Henry Newman] “A sacerdotal order is historically the essence of the Church of Rome; if not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist.” (22) 2. THE CONFESSIONAL TESTIMONY The view that the papacy is the Antichrist is one which is held not only by individuals but also by churches. In drawing up their confessions of faith, which serve both as a test of orthodoxy and as a witness to the world, the great denominations have seen fit to include a section about the Pope. Second Helvetic Confession (1536) (Reformed): Chapter XVII. “NO PRIMACY IN THE CHURCH. He has strictly forbidden his apostles and their successors to have any primacy and dominion in the Church. Who does not see, therefore, that whoever contradicts and opposes this plain truth is rather to be counted among the number of those of whom Christ’s apostles prophesied: Peter in II Peter, ch. 2, and Paul in Acts 20:2; II Cor. 11:2; II Thess., ch. 2, and also in other places?” Articles of Smalcald (1537) (Lutheran): “This teaching shows forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power...saying that in order to be saved a person must obey him.” (Part II, Art. IV) Thirty-nine Articles (1562) (Anglican): XIX. Of the Church “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.” XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.” Irish Articles (1615) (Episcopalian): 80. “The Bishop of Rome is so far from being the supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, that his works and doctrine do plainly discover him to be that ‘man of sin,’ foretold in the holy Scriptures, ‘whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and abolish with the brightness of His coming.’” Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) (Presbyterian): 25.6 “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22) 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.” (Matt. 23:8-10; 2 Thes. 2:3,4,8,9; Rev. 13:8) Savoy Declaration of Faith (1658) (Congregational): 26.4 “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22) 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 exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (Matt. 23:8-10; 2 Thes. 2:3,4,8,9; Rev. 13:6) London Confession of Faith (1689) (Baptist): 26.4 “The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; (Col. i.18, Matt xxviii. 18-20, Eph. iv.11,12) Neither 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; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (The reader is referred to 2 Thess. ii. 2-9) John Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament (Methodist): (2 Thess.2:3) “the man of sin, the son of perdition-...in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. 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, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped-Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-god. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth-Enthroned. In the temple of God-Mentioned Re 11:1. Declaring himself that he is God-Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Let us understand the significance of these statements. Churches which subscribe to these confessions are saying to their office-bearers, not simply, “You may believe this,” or, “We would prefer you to believe this,” but, “You must believe this.” We may add that the view that the papacy is the Antichrist is held not only by churches in our land but also officially by the state. This is all too often forgotten. The Westminster Confession of Faith, including its section on the man of sin, was ratified by an Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1649. We are not aware that the Act has ever been repealed; it has simply been ignored. Then there is the Act of Settlement and the Coronation Oath. Despite many attempts to remove this legislation it is still in place. 3. THE SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY To know what good men have believed is helpful. To know what churches have decided is useful. But in the end there can only be one question: “What saith the Scripture?” Who is the Antichrist according to the Word of God? The word “antichrist” or “antichrists” occurs five times in our English Bible, all in the Epistles of John, but the Antichrist is referred to in other passages of Scripture. There are three great passages: Daniel Chapter 7. There we learn of the rise of the Antichrist. 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2. There we learn of the reign of the Antichrist. Revelation Chapters 13, 17&18. There we learn of the eventual ruin of the Antichrist. The central passage and the key one is 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10. We may concentrate on this passage for it is perhaps the plainest. It is important to note that this passage is not only prophetic but also pastoral. It is written for a congregation of God’s people who are perplexed about the future. It is written to instruct them and to help them with their difficulties. We should remember this when people tell us that we cannot know for certain who the man of sin is! From this passage we will note twelve marks of the Antichrist. We shall refer to the other passages as necessary. In his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians Paul is correcting a misunderstanding concerning his First Epistle. There he had stated that “the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” (1Thess.5:2) It seems that some had interpreted him as teaching that Christ’s return would not only be sudden but also soon. Therefore they had begun to neglect their present duties, even ceasing to work in some cases (2Thess.3:11). So now he explains that certain events must take place before the Lord will return. We shall look at his teaching here as it bears upon the man of sin – the Antichrist. 1. The Antichrist is a significant figure. v.3. “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed” The Antichrist is a great sign of the times. He is not a minor figure belonging to a brief period in church history. His appearance is noteworthy and of the greatest significance for the church of Christ in this dispensation. It indicates that an apostasy has occurred. Indeed in the original Greek it is the apostasy. The Antichrist rises up as people fall away from Christ. Everything in this passage indicates that this defection, headed by the man of sin, is a spiritual one and not any other sort. Romanism is a system personified in its head, the Pope. Every new pope inherits the system and is the head of the system. That is why it is properly named ‘popery’. One could conceivably take away the Queen or head of state from Anglicanism and certainly the Moderator of the General Assembly from Presbyterianism and still be left with the essence of these systems. But not so with popery. You just cannot have popery without the Pope! He is the summit of the Roman system. Bishop Newton wrote: “This image and representative of the Beast is the Pope. He is properly the idol of the Church. He represents in himself the whole power of the Beast and is the head of all authority, temporal as well as spiritual. He is nothing more than a private person, without power and without authority till the two-horned Beast or corrupted clergy by choosing him as Pope, give life unto him, and enable him to speak and utter his decrees, and to persecute even to death, as many as refuse to submit to him and worship him. As soon as he is chosen Pope, he is clothed with the Pontifical robes, and crowned and placed upon the altar, and the Cardinals come and kiss his feet, which ceremony is called ‘adoration’.” (23) From this text we see the error of preterism. Preterism is that school of prophecy which sees the Book of Revelation, except for the last three chapters, as describing events which occurred shortly after John wrote. The Antichrist appeared then. Some preterists believe that the prediction of the coming of Antichrist was fulfilled in the tyranny of imperial Rome against the church, others in the rejection of the gospel by the Jews and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This scheme of interpretation had its origin with the Jesuit Alcazar in 1614. But it is a deception, designed by Rome to exclude the papacy from the reckoning when it comes to identifying the Antichrist. 2. The Antichrist is a wicked figure. v.3. “that man of sin” The Antichrist is characterised by sin. He is pre-eminent for disobedience. He is “that Wicked” (v.8). He is the supreme antichrist and he surpasses all the others in wickedness. “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” (1John 2:18) The doctrines of the papacy are wicked doctrines. They are things for which there is no Scripture warrant and against which there is specific Scripture warning. Daniel foresaw the Antichrist, in the form of a “little horn” which came up among ten other horns. The little horn was unique, for in it were “eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things” (Dan.7:8). What he saw was plainly a man – the man of sin. The little horn represented a king and a kingdom different from all others, one which would “speak great words against the most High” and “think to change times and laws.” (Dan.7:25) The Antichrist disregards God’s holy commandments and invent his own sinful ones. He does so shamelessly. According to Thomas Manton Cardinal Bellarmin said that Christ had given to Peter and his successors a power to make sin to be no sin, and that “if the Pope should err in forbidding virtues and commanding vices, the Church were bound to believe vices to be good and virtues evil.” (24) But Scripture says: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa.5:20) What Daniel saw dimly Paul saw clearly. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1Tim.4:1-3) James Begg comments: “The apostle’s description embraces not only the lying spirit of Popery, which has always been one of its leading features, its prohibition of marriage in the case of nuns, monks, and priests – a most remarkable feature of the system, – its commands to abstain from certain meats, but, as Mede has proved...its restoration of the demon or hero-worship of the Pagans, in the form of an impious devotion offered to the Virgin Mary and the real or supposed saints.” [i.e. “giving heed to seducing spirits”] (25) The lives of the popes are wicked lives. We select from what Albert Barnes wrote on this verse in his Notes, commenting on the phrase the “man of sin”: “Though there may have been some exceptions, yet there never has been a succession of men of so decidedly wicked character as have occupied the Papal throne since the great apostasy commenced. A very few references to the characters of the popes will furnish an illustration of this point. Pope Vagilius waded to the pontifical throne through the blood of his predecessor. Pope Joan–the Roman Catholic writers tell us–a female in disguise, was elected and confirmed pope, as John VIII. Platina says, that ‘she became with child by some of those that were around her; that she miscarried, and died on her way from the Lateran to the temple.’ Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to idols....Pope John II was publicly charged at Rome with incest....Pope Sixtus IV licensed brothels at Rome. Pope Alexander VI was, as a Roman Catholic historian says, ‘one of the greatest and most horrible monsters in nature that could scandalize the holy chair. His beastly morals, his immense ambition, his insatiable avarice, his destestable cruelty, his furious lusts, and monstrous incest with his daughter Lucretia, are, at large, described by Guicciardini Ciaconius, and other authentic papal historians.’ ” (26) 3. The Antichrist is a reprobate figure. v.3. “the son of perdition” The Antichrist is a child of hell. He emerges from the bottomless pit (Rev.11:7). He has a type in that other figure who is labelled “the son of perdition” – Judas Iscariot (John 17:12). Jesus said to His disciples: “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70) In John’s account of the last supper we learn how Jesus identified His betrayer by giving the morsel to Judas. Then we read: “And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.” (John 13:27) This was the point of no return for this false friend of Christ. “He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.” (v.30) Darkness was over Jerusalem, and darkness was over Judas’s soul. When Judas had done his deed and saw that Christ was condemned to death, he was remorseful. He “repented himself.” Recognising the innocence of Christ he said to the chief priests and elders, “I have sinned.” But then he went and hanged himself (Matt.27:3,4). There was no real repentance. Indeed he could not repent. He had sinned the sin of which John writes – the sin which is unto death. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” (1John 5:16) What is this sin? It is revealed elsewhere to be the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus said: “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” (Mark 3:29) All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but some have gone further. Looking at this sin in its scriptural context, a person is guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit when he represents the work of God as though it were the work of the devil. When Christ healed a blind and dumb man possessed with a devil, the Pharisees said: “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” (Matt.12:24) Jesus said to them: “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (v.28) He said: “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (v.32) The papacy has committed this unpardonable sin. The papacy blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. The Pope declares his anathemas against those who do the work of God today, preaching the gospel of grace with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. He curses those who believe in justification by faith alone. So the Pope cannot be saved. We know of Roman Catholic priests who have been saved – but bishops, cardinals, popes? It seems that while priests may be brought to an acknowledgment of their sins those who make men priests and give them their supposed powers are outwith the sphere of mercy. 4. The Antichrist is a proud figure. v.4. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped” The Antichrist is marked by arrogance. He is of the same spirit as Diotrephes in the Third Epistle of John, who “loveth to have the preeminence.” (3John 9) His career is one of a self-exaltation which knows no limit. He attacks the Godhead and especially the Lord Jesus Christ. Here we see the first meaning of the prefix ‘anti-’. It can mean ‘against’. What is the Antichrist against? “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1John 2:22) Yet his attack on the Almighty is not a straightforward one. It is along the lines that Paul warns Titus of. “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Tit.1:16) Rome confesses the great Ecumenical Creeds with her mouth but then she denies them by her actions, especially by the actions of the papacy where her power and glory is concentrated. There is hardly a doctrine of Christianity which has not been contaminated by the papacy. In particular the Person and work of Jesus Christ are denied by what the papacy does. The papacy presents Christ not so much as the Son of God but as the Son of Mary. The papacy has exalted itself above God by exalting the Virgin above Christ. The papacy has crowned her Queen of Heaven. Pope Pius IX declared (1854) that she was preserved exempt from the stain of original sin, a dignity which belongs to Christ alone. Pope Pius XII declared (1950) that she ascended bodily into heaven, again detracting from Christ. She is called the Mother of God and a mediator between God and men. She is said to be more compassionate than her Son and to be willing to intercede with Him for poor sinners. She is effectively another person in the Godhead. There is a denial of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by the worship of the Virgin Mary. Pope John Paul II was well-known for his devotion to Mary. His personal motto was, “Totus Tuus” – “totally yours.” For a Christian this could only apply to Christ but with the Pope the reference was to Mary, not Christ. He publicly credited her with saving his life after the assassination attempt in 1982. During the papal visit in 1981 the Pope said to young people in Edinburgh: “Follow the example of our Blessed Lady, the perfect model of trust in God and wholehearted co-operation in his divine plan for the salvation of mankind....through her intercession he (Jesus) will transform your lives.” (26) Millions are left blinded and deluded by this scarcely-concealed idolatry. The papacy not only exalts itself above all that is called God or is to be reverenced but also opposes all that belongs to God. What is more precious to God in this world than His own people? And what has always been the consequence for them when papal power has been unchecked? Oppression, tyranny, persecution and blood. The papacy denies true religious and civil liberty and the Church of Rome has been known for her cruelty over the centuries. ‘Spanish Inquisition’ is a term which has passed into common speech to indicate a harsh and searching examination of someone. The persecuting spirit of popery was at work from the time that Rome began to be in the ascendancy. The Inquisition was formally set up by Pope Gregory IX in 1232. Its declared object was to maintain popish supremacy in Europe by suppressing ‘heresy’ – which of course meant anything contrary to popery. The work of apprehending and trying heretics was entrusted to papal inquisitors, usually drawn from the ranks of the Dominican and Franciscan orders. We may list some of the infamous episodes of Romish persecution: the pursuit of the Waldenses and others in the valleys of Piedmont and Savoy in the twelfth century; the extermination of the Albigenses in the South of France during the thirteenth century; the slaying of thousands of Hussites in Bohemia in 1421; the Marian Persecution (1553-1558), in which some 300 men, women and children were martyred in England for their Protestant faith, most of them by burning; the murder of thousands of Protestants in the Netherlands by the Duke of Alva in 1567; the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572), in which 70,000 Protestants were killed in France and after which a ‘Te Deum’ or hymn of thanksgiving was sung in Rome; and the killing of many thousands of Protestants in Ireland in 1641 during the uprising declared by the Roman Church. “In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” (Rev.18:24) In theory the Inquisition was wound up in 1820. But Romish persecution did not end then. Last century, during the Second World War, an extraordinary event took place in Europe, largely unnoticed by the world at the time. A new state called Croatia was created out of the territory of Yugoslavia. A Roman Catholic head of state in league with a Roman Catholic Archbishop pursued a ‘convert or die’ policy among the non-Roman Catholic minority – the Serbs, Jews and others. Today it would be called ‘ethnic cleansing’. Yet there was this difference. These people did not have to die. They could become Roman Catholics instead! 200,000 did, compared with the 700,000 or so who were killed in the most savage way. Is this the church of Christ, wielding the sword of steel rather than the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God? Even today we get reports from time to time in the Christian media of Protestants in Mexico and other places dominated by Rome being attacked and killed – because of the gospel. The local priests always seem to connive at this. It is a reminder of what we are spared by living in a Protestant country – and a warning of what may await us if Rome’s revival continues unabated and the papacy once again holds sway in this kingdom. 5. The Antichrist is a christian figure. v.4. “he as God sitteth in the temple of God” We must explain precisely what we mean here by ‘christian’. We mean that the Antichrist is to be found in the religious realm. He is not an atheist but an ecclesiastic. In the New Testament the “temple of God” indicates either the individual body of the believer or the collective body of believers, the Christian church. Paul writes to the church at Corinth and says: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?” (1Cor.3:16) So the Antichrist is not an outside person but a christian figure who arises in the midst of the church. The papacy arose in the very midst of the Church of Jesus Christ and its own bishops were the ones who fostered the idea of their hierarchical aspirations and their gradual assumption of more and more power. We see the error of literalism. There is an approach to the Bible, and particularly to prophetic passages, that seems to demand a literal fulfilment of everything which is foretold. This usually leads to absurdities. Many fundamentalists expect the Jewish temple to be rebuilt and the Antichrist to emerge from the Jewish race. American fundamentalist Jerry Falwell recently insisted that the Antichrist must be a Jewish figure because he will be a false Christ who deceives people. He reasoned that the only person who could pass as a false Christ would be a Jewish male! He said that the Antichrist was “probably” alive on earth right now. However the Antichrist will not deceive men by his looks but by his location. It should also be clear from this verse that Mohammed is disqualified from being the Antichrist. He did not arise from within the Christian church, neither does Islam try to pass itself off as Christianity. Likewise Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In contrast many today think that Romanism equals Christianity and Christianity equals Romanism! 6. The Antichrist is a blasphemous figure. v.4. “shewing himself that he is God” The Antichrist is a rival to Christ. He too lays claim to Godhood. Here we see the second meaning of the prefix ‘anti-’. It can also mean ‘instead of’. In the Bible blasphemy may mean speaking against God but it also means claiming divine attributes, titles and privileges for oneself. The Antichrist claims divine powers for himself, vaunting himself and raising himself above every lawful human authority and placing himself on a par with God. It is apparent that the papacy is guilty of this supreme blasphemy. In the eleventh century Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) declared that the papal power was superior to that of the emperor. Because he challenged the power of Pope Gregory, Henry IV, Emperor of Germany, was forced to come as a penitent to the gates of the papal castle, standing barefoot in the snow. Since that time the popes have never given up their claims to earthly power and dominion. But they go further. They usurp divine authority also. The papacy assumes divine attributes. Infallibility is that quality whereby a person or thing is free from error, indeed is incapable of error. In 1870 Pope Pius IX declared the dogma that the papacy is infallible in matters of doctrine and morals when speaking ex cathedra, or from the ‘Chair of St Peter’. But the Bible says, “There is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” (Ecc.7:20) It tells us that, not the word of the Pope but the Word of God “cannot be broken” (John 10:34) It exhorts us: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa.8:20) The papacy assumes divine titles. In fact the papacy employs titles which blaspheme each of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity. The Pope is known as “Holy Father,” a title which belongs exclusively to God the Father and was so-used by our Lord Jesus Christ in His great prayer in John Chapter 17 (v.11). The Pope is known as “Ruler of the World,” a title which belongs exclusively to God the Son, to whom the Father says in the second Psalm, “I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” (v.8) The Pope is known as the “Vicar of Christ,” meaning the substitute of Christ, a title which belongs exclusively to God the Holy Spirit, for it was of Him that Christ spoke when He said, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” (John 14:16; cf. v.26) The papacy assumes divine privileges. It belongs to God alone to forgive sins. It was because Christ said to the man sick of the palsy, “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee” (Matt.9:2) that the scribes accused him of blasphemy, not knowing that God in the Person of the only begotten Son was in their very midst. The “Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins” – but the man of sin has no power to do the same. Yet he claims to have. Through his pretend priests he absolves the penitent of all his sins in the confessional. He can even procure the divine pardon for those who have departed this life and languish in purgatory – or at least remission of divine punishment. No! We say in the words of Scripture, “who can forgive sins but God only?” (Mark 2:7) Is the Pope able to say to a paralytic, “Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk” – and bring it to pass – immediately? Only then could we believe that he has power to forgive men their sins. Christ did both. 7. The Antichrist is a hidden figure. v.6. “And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time” The Antichrist was “in the wings” in Paul’s day; he would not emerge onto the world stage until later. John said: “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1John 4:3) Something was restraining the Antichrist at that time. Verse 8 tells us that this something was in fact someone: “he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” (To ‘let’ here, according to the older usage of the word, means to hinder rather than to permit). It is a common interpretation to refer these words to the Holy Spirit. Some Bible versions capitalise the personal pronoun in verse 8. In the New King James Version we read: “He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.” That is one reason why we should not use this version. In this place it has become an interpretation rather than a translation, and we believe that its interpretation is a wrong one. The idea is that the Spirit’s power restrains the power of the Antichrist until, in the purpose of God, the time comes when the Antichrist is to be given free reign upon the earth. But is the language of being “taken out of the way” really applicable to the Holy Spirit? Is it not more appropriate to a human person rather than a divine Person? And why such a guarded reference to the Holy Spirit? We learn from the previous verse that while he was with them Paul had told the Thessalonians about the one who was restraining the rise of the man of sin. “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?’ (v.5) There was wisdom in the cautious way he now referred to the restrainer, because of the identity of the restrainer. He needed to be careful for some reason. Who and what was restraining the man of sin? It is clear that the movement which culminated in the papal system had its origin in apostolic times. Paul prophesied: “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30) In apostolic times the Roman empire was in place. Three of Daniel’s four beasts – the lion, bear and leopard, representing the Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Greek empires – had come and gone. Daniel’s fourth beast, which was “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly” (Dan.7:7) was now in power. This was the Roman empire with its all-powerful emperor. While the Roman Empire was in power, with the pagan emperor at its head, Christianity was an illegal religion. The aspirations of the Antichrist could not come to fruition. But the Roman Empire came to an end in 476 A.D. After the removal of this restraining influence the Antichrist came out openly with his claims and was also revealed in his true nature. When the Christian religion, at the time of Constantine, became the state religion, the outward organisation of the Church could be built up without hindrance, and this factor became still more prominent with the energetic efforts of Leo I to establish the throne of the Papacy. The end of the Western Empire was merely an additional factor in the rise of the Papacy. From the end of the 5th century onward the true character of the Papacy was revealed more and more. Turretin says that it was in the six hundredth year that “Antichrist raised his head.” (28) Pagan Rome gave way to papal Rome. Rome changed its form, but remained the same in spirit. Indeed its malevolent power grew. In his vision Daniel saw that the look of the little horn was “more stout than his fellows” (Dan.7:7). 8. The Antichrist is a cunning figure. v.7. “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work” The Antichrist is not an open enemy of Christ. He is full of guile and cunning. Like Judas Iscariot he wears a mask of friendship to Christ. Just as many did not recognise Christ when He came into this world, so many do not recognise the Antichrist. There is the great mystery of godliness: “God was manifest in the flesh.” (1Tim.3:16) It was the incarnation of God. There is the great mystery of iniquity. It is the incarnation of the devil, in disguise. Neither do men without grace recognise the true character of the church of which the papacy is the head, for she is “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT” (Rev.17:15). Like the true church she appears as a woman, but whereas the bride of Christ is dressed in white she is clothed in scarlet and purple; whereas the bride of Christ is a chaste virgin she is a whore. The papacy was exposed as the Antichrist by Luther and others at the Reformation. He was wounded but he recovered, to be adored by many today. Divisions among Protestants and the Counter-Reformation allowed him to continue his activities until the present day. He is not understood for what he truly is. So he is consulted by statesmen. Men as diverse as Tariq Aziz and Tony Blair have gone to see him. What did the Pope say to them? We do not know. One thing is sure. It is sure that the Pope did not open the Bible with these two men and point them to Jesus Christ as “the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6) He did not tell them that there is “none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) He did not warn them of sin and unbelief and the Day of Judgment. Those who go to see the Pope are dupes. They get no benefit. The papacy gets the benefit. It is really a political institution, seeking world domination for itself. And its scheming is very successful. 9. The Antichrist is a vulnerable figure. v.8. “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth” The Antichrist does not have complete success. There is one weapon he cannot resist. By “the spirit of his mouth” we understand the Holy Scriptures. They are the inspired word of God. They are the Word of Christ: “out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword.” (Rev.1:16) When the gospel is preached in the power of the Holy Spirit then Antichrist is consumed by the Lord Jesus Christ. Throughout the long centuries of New Testament history converts have been won from Rome through the translation and circulation of faithful copies of the Scriptures and by the preaching of the gospel of grace. No wonder that Rome has banned the Bible and burned the Bible in the past! No wonder that Rome sponsors ecumenical translations and rejoices at the flood of perverted versions which obscure the truth of the gospel. From this verse we see the error of futurism. Futurism is that school of prophecy which sees the Book of Revelation, except for the first three chapters, as describing events which have have not yet occurred. The Antichrist is yet to appear. Futurists look for a personal Antichrist who will initiate a period of great tribulation at the very end of the Christian era just prior to the return of Christ. This scheme of interpretation had its origin with the Jesuit Ribera in 1591. But again it is a deception, designed by Rome to exclude the papacy from the reckoning when it comes to identifying the Antichrist. 10. The Antichrist is a doomed figure. v.8. “and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” The Antichrist will be destroyed when Christ returns. He will arise in time and his dominion will be broken down by the gospel but he will not be finally destroyed until the Lord’s glorious return at the Judgment Day. We see the truth of historicism. The spirit of antichrist was already at work in the apostles’ day. This spirit would develop “behind the scenes” until the Antichrist himself would be made clearly manifest at a point in time. The Antichrist would then continue until the day of Christ, centuries later. This indicates that the Antichrist is not one particular individual but a series of persons occupying the same office. We need not think that the title “the man of sin” must mean a single person. When we read in Scripture of the “man of God” do we understand this to apply to one man only? Rather it is a title for ministers generally. When we read the title “the man of sin” it represents a dynasty, like “the high priest” or “the king.” Pope John Paul II became the Antichrist in 1978 at his enthronement. Before that he was an antichrist. When Pope John Paul II died Pope Benedict XVI became the Antichrist in his place. Robert Murray M’Cheyne wrote: “In Psalm 137 you will see that Babylon, or Popery, is ‘doomed to destruction;’ and in Revelation 18 you will see that her destruction will be very sudden and very terrible. Oh that it may come soon, for thousands are perishing under its soul-destroying errors!” (28) 11. The Antichrist is a charismatic figure. v.9. “whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” The Antichrist claims a power to perform miracles. Note however that he is characterised by lying wonders. In other words, his miracles are based upon lies and are designed to spread lies. The Church of Rome has always been full of supposed miracles. The charismatics are very much in the junior league compared with popery! There are the ‘visible’ miracles: relics, the Turin Shroud, visions of Mary, healings at Lourdes, etc. Then there are the ‘invisible’ miracles: baptismal regeneration, priestly absolution, extreme unction, and, the greatest of them all, the miracle of the Mass. The words of the priest are supposed to effect the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. You cannot see this miracle. You have to take it on trust. It is repugnant to reason, let alone to Scripture. This deceit is believed by millions. The Anglican Reformers had this to say about the mass in the Thirty-nine Articles: “Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” (XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross) 12. The Antichrist is a fraudulent figure. v.10. “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” The Antichrist misleads men by deception and draws them away from the Saviour. The Antichrist is constantly deceiving people who give credence to his false claims. “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2John 7) Romanism denies that Christ has come in the flesh. Many will reply to this, But surely the Church of Rome of all the churches upholds the doctrine of the Incarnation! Look at her devotion to Mary the Mother of Jesus! Yes, but what she gives with one hand she takes away with the other. She acts as though Christ had never come into the world and suffered to make atonement for sin. With her sacrificing priesthood and ritualistic worship she belongs in the Old Testament and not the New. At least that other Old Testament religion, Judaism, has left behind its altars and temple. Jesus said, “there shall arise false Christs” (Matt.24:24). People will say, “Lo, here is Christ, or there” (v.23). That is the deception. It is a mark of the Antichrist that he brings with him “all deceivableness of unrighteousness.” The use of Scriptures by the Papacy only makes the delusion and lying wonders more deceptive. This is found in his followers too, because they have loved the lie rather than the truth. And as a judgment “God shall send them strong delusion” (v.11). What a powerful delusion it is in our day! The papacy appears to have changed. A more friendly and benign image is presented to the world. The ‘heretics’ she once persecuted are now ‘separated brethren’ whom she courts assiduously. But understand this. Not a single doctrine has changed. Rome still damns those who believe the biblical doctrine of justification. She is semper idem – always the same. This is the historical view. This is the confessional view. This is the scriptural view. But in conclusion we must say something else. This is: 4. THE ESSENTIAL TESTIMONY “On no!” many will say, “We do not have to believe this! It is not necessary to salvation.” That is not our point. To believe this doctrine may not be necessary for a sinner to get to heaven. There are churches which do not accept it. But while it may not be necessary for the being of the church, we say it is essential for the well-being of the church. This is especially true in our ecumenical age. Protestant churches which do not maintain the view that the papacy is the Antichrist and which believe that the Church of Rome is just another Christian denomination, albeit in error, are in danger of becoming a prey. Rome will swallow them up. What is true of churches is also true of individuals. People with some religious convictions look at the Archbishop of Canterbury (whichever one) and they are disappointed; then they look at the Pope and they say, “Well, at least he speaks with some authority!” There seems to be some orthodoxy, there seems to be some morality. So people pervert to Rome, including high-profile figures like the Duchess of Kent, John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe and many others. Or they make crass statements about the Pope, saying as Billy Graham did in 1980 that Pope John Paul II has emerged as “the greatest religious leader of the modern world and one of the greatest moral...leaders of this century.” (30) We must learn the lesson of the Reformation. There were three clear strands to that great work of God. There was the doctrinal strand: the pure gospel was recovered out of Scripture. There was the practical strand: true holiness was revived through obedience to the moral law. There was the prophetic strand: the papacy was renounced as the Antichrist foretold in the Bible. Today’s evangelicals look back at those times and thank God for the first two elements, but they are less inclined to dwell on the third. If the truth be known they are somewhat embarrassed at the emphasis on the Church of Rome as the great whore and the papacy as the man of sin. Yet the three belong together. H. Grattan Guinness wrote about the reformers: “They opposed the Church of Rome, as condemned alike by the doctrines, the precepts, and the prophecies of the word of God. It might be difficult to say which of the three weighed with them most. On each they were clear and emphatic. These three elements cannot be separated in estimating the springs of the Reformation. From the first, and throughout, that movement was energised and guided by the prophetic word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the Papal apostasy till he recognised the pope as antichrist. It was then he burned the Papal bull. Knox’s first sermon, the sermon which launched him on his mission as a reformer, was on the prophecies concerning the Papacy. The reformers embodied their interpretations of prophecy in their confessions or faith, and Calvin in his ‘Institutes.’ All the reformers were unanimous in the matter....And their interpretation of these prophecies determined their reforming action. It led them to protest against Rome with extraordinary strength and undaunted courage. It nerved them to resist the claims of that apostate Church to the uttermost. It made them martyrs; it sustained them at the stake. And the views of the reformers were shared by thousands, by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by princes and peoples. Under their influences nations abjured their allegiance to the false priest of Rome. In the reaction which followed, all the powers of hell seemed to be let loose upon the adherents of the Reformation. War followed war: tortures, burnings, and massacres were multiplied. Yet the Reformation stood undefeated and unconquerable. God’s word upheld it, and the energies of His almighty spirit. It was the work of Christ as truly as the founding of the Church eighteen centuries ago; and the revelation of the future which He gave from heaven–that prophetic book with which the Scripture closes–was one of the mightiest instruments employed in its accomplishment.” (31) It is just as Scripture says: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecc.4:12). We must not be silent. We need to warn people. We are familiar with the words towards the end of the Book of Revelation. “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev.22:19) This text is usually applied, rightly so, to those who meddle with the inspired and preserved text of Scripture, removing or otherwise altering verses according to the latest judgments of the textual critics. But do we not also take away from the words of prophecy when we fail to mention them, interpret them properly, teach them and apply them? Whole chapters of the Apocalypse are taken up with the papacy. These things are also “written for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” (1Cor.10:11) The night is far spent, and the day is at hand. Let us hold fast the form of sound words and not shun to declare all the counsel of God, including what He has told us about the papacy. It is always good to be positive where we can. There is something which ought to be stressed. While we detest the papacy and all that it stands for, we have no enmity towards Roman Catholic people. Our desire is to show kindness to them and to point them to our blessed Saviour. We may be aware of the most encouraging book by Richard Bennett with the title, “Far from Rome Near to God”. (32) It contains the testimonies of fifty former priests in the Church of Rome who have been converted to Christ. The Antichrist does not win in the end! He is no match for the Son of God. So we say to all, Will you follow Jesus or the papacy? Christ or Antichrist? There can only be one answer. We will follow Christ. We conclude with an appropriate quote from James Begg. “Now, we can easily imagine that Popery must be most anxious to evade the force and application of this mass of consistent and conclusive evidence – although, as yet, so far as we know, she has not made any plausible attempt to turn it aside; but it is very difficult to understand why Protestants should be blind to the vast importance of this scriptural identification of their great enemy. Can these descriptions possibly be applied to any thing else recorded in history? Do they not literally and strikingly apply to the Papal Anti-Christ? Is it not comforting to know, that nothing has happened in all this which the Spirit of God did not clearly predict? And may we not, therefore, triumphantly anticipate the time – now very near – when this monstrous incubus being heaved off the face of Christendom, the true spiritual Church of Christ shall stand forth before angels and men in all the glory of her millennial strength? The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform this.” (32) References (1) Wylie, James A., Preface to The Papacy is the Antichrist. Quoted in: Paisley, Ian R.K., Antichrist. Belfast: Martyrs Memorial Productions, n.d., p.3. (2) Sadler, I.A., Mystery, Babylon the Great. Published by the author, 6 Aston Close, Pangbourne, Reading, RG8 7LG: 1999, pp.266-267. (3) Wordsworth, Christopher, Is the Papacy Predicted by St. Paul? An Inquiry. Cambridge: The Harrison Trust, 1988, p.22. (4) Sadler, p.267. (5) Sadler, p.267. (6) Wordsworth, p.23. (7) Found at: http://www.biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htm (8) Found at: http://www.biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htm (9) Found at: http://www.temcat.com/liberty/standish/antichrist/aih04.htm (10) Found at: http://www.temcat.com/liberty/standish/antichrist/aih04.htm (the title here should be ‘bishop of Canterbury’ and not ‘bishop of Hippo’) (11) Guinness, H. Grattan, Romanism and the Reformation. Lewes, East Sussex: Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1987, p.140. (12) Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford L. Battles. John T. McNeill, Ed., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: The Westminster Press, 1960, Vol.1, 4:2:12. (13) Guinness, p.152. (14) Guinness, p.148. (15) Poole, Matthew, A Commentary on the Holy Bible. McLean, Virginia, USA: Macdonald Publishing Co., n.d., Vol.III, p.761 [on 2 Thessalonians 2:4]. (16) Henry, Matthew, Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody, Massachusetts, USA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991, p.2347 [on 2 Thessalonians 2:4]. (17) Fairbairn, Patrick, The Interpretation of Prophecy. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1996, p.369. (18) Quoted in Paisley, Ian R.K., Antichrist. Belfast: Martyrs Memorial Productions, n.d., p.71. (19) British Church Newspaper, Issue of 7th & 14th February 2003. (20) Bishop Christodoulos, Auxiliary to the Metropolitan Pavlos Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America Astoria, N.Y., 24/5/01. (21) Quoted in Paisley, p.69. (22) Quoted in Paisley, p.71. (23) Campbell, Alan, The Mark of the Beast. Available from the author at P.O. Box 92, Belfast: n.d., n.p.) (24) Manton, Thomas. Quoted in: Exell, Joseph, E., The Biblical Illustrator. London: James Nisbet & Co., n.d., II Thessalonians, p.40. (25) Begg, James, Popery in Scripture. Taken from A Handbook of Popery and available as a tract from the James Begg Society, c/o Rev. David Blunt, 20 Abbotswell Crescent, Kincorth, Aberdeen, AB12 5AR: n.d., n.p. (26) Barnes, Albert, Notes on the Epistles to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Ingram Cobbin, Ed. Edinburgh: Gall & Inglis, n.d., pp.102-103. (27) North, J.E., The Papal Visit weighed and found wanting. Lewes, East Sussex: Focus Publications, n.d., p.15. (28) Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. James T. Dennison, Ed. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1992, Vol.1, p.162. (29) Bonar, Andrew A., Memoir and Remains of Robert Murray M’Cheyne. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966, p.253. (30) The Saturday Evening Post, February 1980. Quoted in Ewin, Wilson, The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham into the Roman Catholic Church. Quebec Baptist Missions, Box 113, Compton, Quebec, Canada, 1992, p.20. (31) Guinness, pp.153-154. (32) Available from the Banner of Truth Trust, The Grey House, 3 Murrayfield Road, Edinburgh, EH12 6EL. Website: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/home.php (33) Begg, Popery in Scripture. |
|
|