CONSTANTINE ANTICHRIST

The Westminster Confession states the following: “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God” (25:6).

"The Bible says:
The antichrist has been here since the first century  (1John 2:18, 1John 4:3)
The antichrist will still be here when Jesus Christ returns  (2 Thessalonians 2:8)
Therefore…

The antichrist cannot be a single personality because the antichrist has been here almost 2000 years so far.

The antichrist must be an office or a position of authority

The antichrist will not occupy a temple in Jerusalem but will occupy a place amongst what might initially appear to be the body of Christ. The antichrist will sit as the head of this false church. (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

There is only one possibility that can fulfill all these prophesies. And the pope is the only possible position that fulfills all of these scriptural prophesies.

But just as Jesus Christ is the only possible fulfillment of who was to be the Messiah, so too, the pope is the only possible fulfillment of who would be the antichrist. And still millions of people are blind to both

Roman Catholics see the pope as Christ’s vicar, which means, substitute. The pope’s Latin title is Vicarius Filii Dei, which means "Substitute for the Son of God." In the Greek, "antichrist" simply means "in the place of Christ" Thus, by very definition, the pope IS the antichrist.

The word "Pope" means "Father." The word "Father" as a title was forbidden by Jesus Christ:

“And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” -Matthew 23:9" - extracted from The Bible says The Pope is the Antichrist

 

Is the Pope really the AntiChrist of the Bible?Is the Roman Church the WHORE of Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelations by John the Beloved? Find out from this post if my findings are true. May His Holy Spirit enlightened you to know the truth and open your eyes of what God is telling His people.

"The Whore of Babylon or Babylon the Great is a symbolic female figure and also place of evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. Her full title is stated in Revelation 17:5 as Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth (Greek: μυστηριον, Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, ἡ μήτηρ τῶν πορνῶν καὶ τῶν βδελυγμάτων τῆς γῆς;  transliterated Mysteriōn, Babylōn hē megalē, hē mētēr tōn pornōn kai tōn bdelygmatōn tēs gēs)."

"Historicist interpreters commonly used the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Reformation writers from Martin Luther (1483–1546) (who wrote On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin (1509–1564), and John Knox (1510–1572) (who wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women) taught this association.^{" - Wikipedia}

Mystery Babylon: The Church Moves From Persecuted To Persecutor.

"Pagan Rome rises and falls. Its history is clearly heralded by many. And as a true child of Babylon it plays its part well. Its hatred of and persecution of both Jews and Christians is well documented. Rome's mysteries I have already mentioned. They coincide with those of the beginner of all the mysteries, ancient Babylon.

Satan has had an unbroken chain of success in deceiving mankind. But even with all of his force, his intoxicating doctrines, his confusion, he sees that instead of defeating the purposes of God, the people on God's side continue to multiply. Through the resurrection of the Christ that Satan tried to avert has come a veritable shower of life, claiming many of Lucifer's followers.
The Roman Empire, aptly described by Daniel(chapters 2 and 7) in the most horrific of terms, has not scared off God's people after all. Quite the opposite, as there is unparalleled growth of the Kingdom of God.

Serious problem here. When you've given it your best shot and you're failing, what next? Shoot again. But with what? If the Empire cannot crush the fledgling church, what can? There is a sinister smile on Satan's face as he decides on a totally different tactic for the Christians: acceptance.
The higher the authority that accepts a human, the better that person feels about himself, and the more beholden he becomes. If Satan's bunch actually "accept" the church, will she yield to those pressures, when the threat of violence and death made no dent at all?
To help answer that question, I introduce now the next player in this drama, would-be Emperor Constantine.

Here again I need your undivided attention. Listen to this scheme of all schemes with the horror due it.

After more than 300 years of burning, torturing, demeaning Christians, there is a lull in history. Constantine allegedly sees a vision of a cross, and is told that he must now conquer in that sign. I say "allegedly" because I was not there, and the witnesses are not of the caliber of Spirit-inspired Bible-writers. I trust you will forgive my hesitancy to accept the standard story.
In fact historians have debated as to

1) whether he even saw a vision
2) exactly what he saw
3) who gave the supposed vision
It's an interesting question, the answer to which has absolutely nothing to do with what follows. What did the vision produce?

Facts agreed upon:
1) After the "vision," the soldiers of Constantine had an emblem that they took to stand for Christ placed on their shields, and with these shields facing their enemy( another would-be emperor) they won.
2) Constantine prayed to his sun-god, Mithras, before the battle.
3) He in fact prayed to that god until the day of his death, on which day he is alleged to have received "baptism".

So, Constantine, a Caesar, pro-Christ but not of-Christ, lifts the church from its obscure dungeons, and brings it to the light of day, at least the Babylonian day of Pagan Rome.
Freedom is sweet to the persecuted church. Had you and I been there, we would have done what that early church now does: honor the man who brings you out of suffering.

Honor and attention are what Constantine thrives on. Many of his subjects are Christians, and the vision is well-timed, whatever its origin. As Pharaoh of Egypt, he does the "smart" thing and averts a potential revolution of a growing people.

And Constantine's bondage of servitude is of a kinder, nobler sort. All he wants for rescuing the Christians from persecution, death, and the other things that the early church has come to accept as normal (after all, didn't Jesus promise all this?), all he wants, I say, is complete control of the church.
It is tempting to say nice things about Constantine. All the books do, you know. He was a great man, after all. He did, like Lincoln, "free the slaves." Oh, our flesh loves him. I mean, can we imagine the great burden of stinking prisons, bloodshed, unequaled torture suddenly removed? Can we not weep with joy with the early believers, as their chains fall off, and say, "THANKS, Constantine "?

Consider, from our present vantage point, what has really happened. Constantine, you have unwittingly wedded your Babylon to the Bride of Christ, purified by hundreds of years of fire. The ultimate act of prostitution is here committed by the Pimp of the ages, Lucifer.

Oh, Satan! Kings and princes of all times you have deceived and lured into your bed, but the Virgin of Christ! How low can your adulterous mind bring you?

Through Constantine, the mother of harlots conceives and bears yet another loathsome offspring. The seed of Satan penetrates the womb of the young church yet again, in a far more harmful way than the false teachers who were, in the main, recognized and expelled. In Constantine, a benefactor, the church is caught unawares, and settles down to be raped." - Extracted fromMystery Babylon: The Church Moves From Persecuted To Persecutor. Series Contributed by Bob Faulkner on Jul 9, 2015 

To be continued

THE WHORE OF BABYLON and the CHURCH OF TARES.

UPDATED DIRECTOR's CUT - Church of Tares: Purpose Driven, Seeker Sensitive, Church Growth & New World Order


"See how the best business practices of management guru Peter Drucker have been borrowed by Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Bob Buford to build influential megachurches. Updated material includes a biblical examination of the office of “celebrity pastor,” the unbiblical practice of “vision casting,” how the Purpose Driven and Seeker Driven movements treat detractors, the Purpose Driven Continent of Africa, the use of non-profit pulpits to sell books and more on “Chrislam.” This information is especially vital to those who follow Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Bob Buford, Andy Stanley, Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, Mark Driscoll, Ed Young Jr., Mark Batterson, James MacDonald and others within the movement."

"BUILDING THE ONE WORLD RELIGION-“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:4

There is a hardcore, full-court press happening right now to unify all Christian denominations under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church, and the charge is being led by none other than apostate pastor  and Chrislam founder Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California. Warren has a purpose driven plan to break down and destroy the Christian church, and unite the pieces with Rome.





In the above video, Rick Warren is seen slyly referring to Pope Francis as “our pope”, and then going on to brag about what a great job he is doing. He wants you to blithely assume that of course Pope Francis is the “spiritual head” over all of Christianity and not simply over the Roman Catholic corporation. He slips it in like that’s what everyone already thinks and believes. This is nothing more than mental conditioning. A bible believing Christian under no circumstances ever would acknowledge that any pope in the Roman system had any sort of rule over them of any kind.



In the second video, Warren lays out his reasons for why all Christian denominations should be united under Rome while failing miserably in his lame attempt to explain away Mary worship and worshipping of dead saints. He very incorrectly asserts that we “all worship the same Jesus” which, if the bible is true, we clearly do not. Warren holds great sway over the millions of his Laodicean Christian followers who simply accept what he speaks as the truth, and will never once check it against scripture. The Roman Catholic “jesus” is received by eating a magic wafer and drinking wine. The actual Jesus of the bible is received by grace through faith and nothing else. One has nothing at all in common with the other.

“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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4" - http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=28695

The Prophecies of Martin Luther

THIS IS A REPOST FROM BEGGARS ALL BLOGGERS SITE. POSTED ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2006 by  JAMES SWAN AT 6:38 AM.

Recently I posted a link to a rare Luther book: Martin Luther’s Letters by Margaret A. Currie (London, 1908). I pointed out that the website hosting the link seems a bit wacky. If you explore the site use some caution and discretion.

One of the other documents they host drew my interest:

Several choice prophecyes of the incomparable and famous Dr. Martin Luther, as also, The remarkable prophecy of the learned and reverend Dr. Musculus

The website hosting this link refers to it as one of Luther’s writings. It is not. It is the work of one of Luther’s students: Andreas Musculus (1514-1581). Musculus’ writing is interesting, as it represents a trend which occurred as the result of Luther’s impact during the 16th-17th Centuries. Musculus viewed Luther as a genuine prophet sent from God. In examining Malachi 4:5 and the return of Elijah before the “last day”, Musculus reasoned that Luther, like John the Baptist, was the returned Elijah, signaling the end of the world. The link above is an example of 16th Century apocalyptic literature. Musculus was certain the end was near.

The link above is about 32 pages and is an interesting read.Much of the information is biographical, presenting a recounting of Luther’s life. Also one finds an emphasis on the Turks and the papacy. For instance:

"Antichrist must fall, and it plainly and clearly appeareth, saith Luther, that the Pope is true Antichrist; those that transgresse his Decrees and Statutes, are farr more feverely and diligently punished, then those who offend the Laws and the word of God: In such a sort doth the Pope exalt himself over, and above God, and he is therefore most properly called Antichrist, in regard that he fitteth in the Temple, and in the Church of God, and boasteth himself above all that is called God. The Turk is not this Antichrist, saith Luther, for he fitteth not in Gods Church; he is but the Battle-Axe of God, whereby he executeth is Vengeance upon the Nations, he is a wicked Beast; out of Gods Church, there is not Antichrist; now the Pope fitteth in the Holy Church, and taketh unto him that Honour and Worship which is due unto God onely, therefore the Pope must be the true Antichrist. It is but a cold, and an idle dream of the Papists, that Antichrist should be a single, and unattended person that should govern in a wilde way by suborning, and scattering of moneys in the streets, and that he should do Miracles, and carry about him a fiery Oven, and that he should destroy the Saints, Eliah, and Enoch. There are too many (said Luther) who complain and think, I am too fierce and too violent against the Pope, when alas I conceive my self to be too milde; I do with that I could breath out thunder-bolts against the Pope and Popery, and that every word were a clap of thunder."

For Luther it was also the end of the world in the 16th Century. The entirety of his Reformation career embraced an impending consummation of history. Mark Edwards points out:

“In general Luther viewed the history of his own time as the realization of the apocalyptic predictions of Daniel and Revelation. The events of his age, he was convinced, were certain signs that the End Time was at hand. The 1530 foreword to his translation of Daniel makes clear how firmly set this conviction was. Following traditional exegesis, Luther identified Daniels ‘kingdom of iron’ with the Roman Empire, which, through its transference to the Germans, had survived into Luther’s own time and would persist until the last day. The papacy was the antichrist alluded to in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, and the Turk was the small horn that replaced three horns of the beast in the seventh chapter. The appearance of the papal antichrist and the success of the Turk left no doubt in Luther’s mind that the apocalyptic drama was in its final act” [Source: Mark U Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 97].

Those of you who know me, know that I do not argue against Rome by using prophecy or identifying the Pope and papacy as the anti-Christ. I do though find this type of historical information very helpful in trying to get a sense for the "mood" of the 16th Century.

Musculus actually went further with his respect and admiration for Martin Luther than many of his contemporaries. For Musculus, Luther’s writings were from God’s special servant: God’s prophet. Luther’s words were thus that vehicle by which to interpret Scripture by. In a 1573 work by Musculus, he noted he daily meditated on the Bible joined with a careful study of Luther’s writings. While ultimate authority was found in the Bible, interpretation of the Scripture was to be guided by Luther’s writings.

IS POPERY THE ANTICHRIST?

THE TENDENCY OF PROPHECY TO DESCRIBE THINGS ACCORDING TO THE REALITY, RATHER THAN THE APPEARANCE OR PROFESSION

The interpretation which has been given in the text of the strongest terms in the apostle's language respecting the antichrist, by understanding them of a virtual, in contradistinction to a formal and avowed assumption of blasphemous prerogatives, is so much in accordance with the general style of prophecy, and so plainly demanded by the connection, that we cannot refrain from expressing our wonder, at finding interpreters of note still pressing the opposite view. Their doing so must be regarded as another instance of that tendency to literalism, which has wrought such confusion in the prophetical field, and which, at particular points, returns upon some, who in general have attained to a correct discernment of the characteristics of prophecy. The practice of describing things by their real, as opposed to their professed or apparent character, is one that peculiarly distinguishes the Apocalyptic imagery. Thus the worldly kingdoms, both in Daniel and the Revelation, are represented as beasts-not that they actually were, or gave themselves out to be such, but because they pursued a course which partook largely of the bestial nature; they were, one might say, virtual beasts. And the false, seductive power designated Babylon, the mother of harlots an d abominations, we may be sure, was not going to proclaim her own shame by declaring herself to be what those epithets import. Beyond all doubt, she is described according to what she really was, not by what she would profess, to be. In like manner, th e names of blasphemy on the head of the beast indicate a real rather than a professed dishonour to the God of heaven; for open profanity and avowed atheism have, with few exceptions, been studiously avoided by the worldly power. It has almost uniformly striven to associate with its different forms of government, and political aims, the name and sanctions of religion. Even in the more prosaic parts of the Apocalypse we find the same characteristic prevailing-as when it describes the soaring spirit of the Gnostic teachers, by their knowing the depths of Satan (not those of God, which they themselves rather affected to understand), and designates them by such epithets as Nicolaitans (people-destroyers), followers of Balaam, Jezebels-which they were so far from professing to be, that they laid claim to the highest gifts and the most honourable distinctions. Nor could it be otherwise with the wolves, of whose coming St Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts xx.); they were not going, when they appeared, to avow their own wolf-like character, but would, doubtless, aspire to the place of guides and shepherds of the flock. All prophecy, indeed, abounds with examples of this mode of representation; for, speaking as with Divine intuition, it ever delights to penetrate through showy appearances, and to strip deceivers of their false disguises. Thus the self-deifying pride of the Chaldean conquerors has its representation in the prophet Habakkuk, by their being characterised as successful fishers, sacrificing to their own net (chap. i. 16); and the corruption of degenerate Israel is exhibited with singular boldness by Ezekiel, under the form of their having had an Amorite father and a Hittite mother (chap. xvi. 3); and by Isaiah, under the announcement, as from themselves, that they had made a covenant with death, and come to an agreement with hell (chap. xxviii. 15). By a still bolder figure the prophet Amos calls the tabernacle in the wilderness the tabernacle of their Moloch, because the idolatrous and unsanctified spirit which still clung to them rendered it practically an idol-tent rather than that of the true God (chap. v. 26). These and many similar representations are obviously designed to set before us the real state and character of the parties described, though entirely different from the outward profession and appearance. On any other principle it were impossible to render much that is written in prophecy either intelligible in itself, or consistent with the facts of history.

The violation of this principle in regard to the passages which treat of the antichristian apostacy, by adhering to a mistaken literalism, is the more to be regretted, as it is doing with this portion of the prophetic Scriptures what it has already d one with those which have respect to the promised Messiah-it is altogether destroying in the hands of its abettors their apologetic value. As, with the one class of predictions, Jewish Rabbis find themselves backed by Christian literalists in denying the fulfilment of some of the clearest prophetic intimations in the history of Jesus of Nazareth, so Romish controversialists are sheltering themselves under the wing of Protestant interpreters of the same school, in rebutting the application of the Scriptural antichrist to Popery. Thus, in a small volume recently published on "The End of the World, or the Second Coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by the Very Rev. John Baptist Pagani," a very adroit use is made of the name of the late Mr Faber. A n astonishment is first expressed that any intelligent person could ever have thought of identifying the Pope of Rome with the antichrist of Scripture, especially that this could be done in so enlightened a country as England; and then a passage from Mr Faber's "Calendar of Prophecy" is quoted to show how a sensible Protestant writer exposes the absurdity of the idea. In the passage referred to the argument is thrown into what is considered both by Mr Faber and by his Catholic admirer a conclusive syllog ism. "I shall throw my argument," Mr Faber says, "into the form of a syllogism, and if any person be able to confute me, I shall be very ready to own myself mistaken. According to St John, he who denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. T he line of the Roman Pontiffs did not deny the Father or the Son; therefore the line of the Roman Pontiffs is not the antichrist." Embracing with satisfaction this triumphant syllogism, Mr Pagani proceeds to give it additional strength by affirming, that so far from denying the Father and the Son, the Roman Pontiffs have always maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Deists, Sabellians, Unitarians, and other herectics; that they have uniformly held, that Christ has come in the flesh; that they hav e also been remarkably distinguished for their humility, taking for their ordinary title, "unworthy ministers of Christ," "servants of the servants of God," whereas antichrist is to exalt himself above all that is called God. P. 41, sq.

One might go through a considerable portion of prophecy with this sort of syllogism, and ask in vain for any thing in the transactions of real life, that would answer to the terms of the predictions. What, on such a style of interpretation, could b e made of the passages to which we have been adverting? Must we suspend the veracity of one prophet on the question, whether the proud Chaldeans actually hung up a net in some temple and did sacrifice to it? Or that of another, on the similar question, whether the Israelites literally bore about during their long sojourn in the wilderness an idolatrous tabernacle in impious rivalry to that of Jehovah?1 Or must we have credible testimony to the fact, that the great worldly monarchies, as they successively arose, did each proclaim their own beast-like and blasphemous character? Or, finally, shall we hold that nothing can verify the description given of the mystic Babylon, which does not set itself openly to establish and avow the prostitution of all r ighteous principle? If such be the kind of expectations, with which we proceed to examine the prophetic word, we may certainly lay our account to meet with few instances of fulfilment; we know not where they are to be found in the past, and are afraid th ey shall in vain be looked for in the future. But surely, if the apostle in his day knew persons in the Christian church, whom he could declare to be the "enemies of the Cross of Christ," even while they were avowedly looking to that cross for salvation, the pontiffs of Rome might justly enough be characterized as denying the Father and the Son, if they should be found claiming prerogatives, and upholding a system of error and delusion, which virtually subvert the revelation given of the Father and the S on in Scripture. Let it just be granted, that in the descriptions of the collective antichrist, the apostles had their eye on the realities, not on the mere appearances of things--no very extravagant postulate surely--then the proper syllogism will stand thus: the antichrist, according to St. John, is he who denies the Father and the Son; but the line of the Roman Pontiffs, by their own blasphemous assumptions, and by their system of legalized falsehood and corruption, utterly opposed to the spirit and design of the Gospel, have denied what is revealed of the Father and the Son; therefore the line of the Roman pontiffs is antichrist. This we take to be a truer form of syllogism than Mr. Faber's. But it only meets one fallacy involved in the interpretation. There is another in its taking for granted, that the representations in John's epistles are to be regarded as comprehensive of all that was to characterize the spirit and conduct of the antichrist. He merely points to one of the first forms and manifestations of the evil-that which took shape under the hands of the Gnostic teachers. By and by this was to lead on to others, of which not less distinct intimation was given elsewhere in the New Testament writings. The anti christian spirit was to assume different phases, according to the peculiar influences of the time, and the changing fortunes of the church. But they were all to have one thing in common: under a profession of Christianity, there was to be something in doctrine or practice, which i n effect made void the Christian truth and life. This in every form was to be the characteristic of antichristianism as contradistinguished from atheism, heathenism, or undisguised worldliness. And hence, so far from expecting that the Popes, or any other embodiments of the antichrist, should formally assume what is predicted of this power, we should rather expect the reverse. We should expect a studious effort to disguise the truth of the case, though such a one as should only impose upon the ignorant or the corrupt. And precisely as the Servant of servants can in lordly arrogance place his foot upon the necks of princes, and claim the ascendency over all earthly power and authority, so under a boastful proclamation of the doctrine of the Trinity, an d the conversion of the Cross into a magic charm, may there by found the most substantial denial of the Father and the Son. In a word, the question is, not what Popery pretends to be, but what it really is; with this alone we have to do in determining its relation to the prophetic delineations of Scripture. And when the subject is viewed in this light, he must be strangely blinded or unhappily biassed, who fails to perceive the striking correspondence between the one and the other.

___________________________________

1. Even Hengstenberg has given too much countenance to this utterly groundless and extravagant idea, when, in discoursing upon this passage of Amos in the first volume of his work on the Pentateuch, he thus unfolds the general sense of the announcement: "T he great mass of the people had, for the larger part of the time during their march through the wilderness, given up honouring the Lord by sacrifices, and instead of Jehovah, the God of hosts, had set up a spurious king of heaven (the Egyptian Pan), whom with the rest of the host of heaven, they honoured with a spurious worship." It is against all probability, that such an openly idolatrous worship, as is here supposed, should have been practised by the mass of the Israelites during their stay in the wilderness. Occasional defections there no doubt were, but we have no reason to think more-at least, nothing approaching to such a regular, systematic, and general idolatry. We are told even of the comparatively smaller and isolated offences of a public nature-such as the gathering of sticks on the Sabbath, and the blaspheming of God's name-being capitally punished; and can it be imagined that an idol-tabernacle should have been allowed to be carried about, and openly frequented? Assuredly not. It is of the state of the heart, of its still unsanctified and idolatrous spirit, that the prophet speaks; this practically turned Jehovah's tent and worship into the interest of heathenism; in God's sight it belonged to Moloch rather than to himself. When thus viewed, also there is no need, with Hengstenberg, of rendering "your king" instead of "your Moloch;" indeed, to do so rather obscures the meaning. The prophet is seeking to identify the idolatrous spirit of his own day with that of earlier times; they w ere then going after Moloch; and so, says the prophet, you have always been substantially doing. You did so through your forefathers in the wilderness; even then you bore the tabernacle of your Moloch, and sacrificed to strange gods, and the old doom mu st return upon you. It is, therefore, the later form of idolatry, which is used to characterize the earlier, not (as Hengstenberg would have it) the earlier the later.

The preceding article was excerpted from Appendix "L," Page 367, of Patrick Fairbairn's The Interpretation of Prophecy, 1864 (Recently reprinted by Banner of Truth Publishing)

SOURCE: SWRB.com

ANTICHRIST AN ENEMY UNDER A MASK.

Antichrist an enemy under a mask.  ( CHAPTER III of the Book The Papacy Is The Antichrist By Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. )

In order to introduce ourselves to our subject, we have taken it for granted that the system described by Paul in the passage we have just quoted is the papacy.  This is the thing to be established.  We now proceed to prove this, and provided we shall show on good and conclusive grounds that the system depicted by Paul is the Roman apostacy, and that this is the same system which Daniel and John have portrayed under symbolic imagery, it will follow that one who admits the Bible to be the Word of God, and that Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, must believe that the Papacy –that is, the Roman apostacy –is the Antichrist of Scripture.

This is not point of mere speculation.  It is a question that has attendant upon it great practical issues.  This inquiry has for its object the ascertainment of the true meaning of an important part of the Word of God, even the better half of its prophecies.  Moreover, on this question must rest the verdict we are to pronounce on that society which calls itself “the church,” as also the revelations in which we are to stand to it.  And on it, too, must depend whether we shall abandon or whether we shall continue to occupy the ground which we have been accustomed to regard as our divine central position in our war with Popery; or, rather, whether we ought not to end this war, and confess that we have been fighting all along under a mistake.

Who is Antichrist?  It will help us to the right answer to this question if we shall first determine, What is Antichrist?  Antichrist is an enemy who makes war with the Son of God.  Of that there is no doubt.  But what is the form of this war, and under what character does Antichrist carry it on?  Does he wage it openly, or does he fight it under a mask? Does he take the field as an open rebel and a declared foe, or does he come as a friendly adherent who professes to bring support and help to the cause which, in reality, he seeks to undermine and destroy?  To determine this point, let us look at the meaning of the word Antichrist as employed in Scripture.

The reader sees that the term is a composite one, being made up of two words anti and Christ.  The name is one of new formation; being compounded, it would seem, for this very enemy, and by its etymology expressing more exactly and perfectly his character than any older word could.  The precise question now before us is this –What is the precise sense of anti in this connection?  Does it designate an enemy who says openly and truly, “I am against Christ.”  Or does it designate one who says plausibly, yet falsely, “I am for Christ.”  Which?  To determine this, let us look at the force given to this prefix by writers in both classic literature and Holy Scripture.  First, the old classic writers.  By these the preposition anti is often employed to designate a substitute.  This is, in fact, a very common use of it in the classic writers.  For instance, anti-basileus, he who is the locum tenens of a king, or as we now should say viceroy: anti having in this case the force of the English term vice. He who filled the place of consul was antihupatos, pro-counsul. He who took the place of an absent guest at a feast was styled antideipnos.  The preposition is used in this sense of the great Substitute Himself.  Christ is said to have given Himself as an antilutron, a ransom in the stead of all. Classic usage does not require us to give only one sense to this word, and restrict it to one who seeks openly, and by force, to seat himself in the place of another, and by violent usurpation bring that other’s authority to an end.  We are at liberty to apply it to one who steals into the office of another under the mask of friendship; and while professing to uphold his interest, labours to destroy them.  This leaves us free to turn to the use of the word in Scripture. The Antichrist comes first into view in our Lord’s discourse recorded in
Matt.xxiv. 24, and Mark xiii. 22.  “For false Christs (pseudoxristos) and false prophets shall arise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.’  Our Lord does not, indeed, use the word Antichrist, but what is almost its synonym pseudo-Christ.  Nevertheless, the persons whose coming He foretells are in the line of Antichrist; they belong to the same family, and their grand characteristic is deception.  Manifestly, they are not open enemies, but pretended friends; they are “false Christs and false prophets,” and as such are forerunners of that great Antichrist who is to succeed them, and in whom they are to find their fuller development and final  consummation.  They shall seek by “signs and wonders,” false, of course, to obscure the glory of Christ’s true miracles, to weaken the evidence of His Messiahship arising there from, and to draw men away from Him, and after themselves.

The other place in the New Testament in which reference is made to Antichrist is the 1st and 2nd Epistles of John.  The idea which John presents of the Antichrist is quite in harmony with that of our Lord.  John looks for him in the guise of a Deceiver.  “Little children,” says John (1st Epistle ii. 18),  “it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists.”  After this announcement of
a special and great Antichrist, to follow in the wake of those minor Antichrists that were already arrived, and were urging their claims on the attention of the world, he comes to look more closely at the giant who was to stand up after these dwarfs had passed away.  He notes prominently one characteristic of him, and it is his falsehood. Antichrist, says John, is to be a liar (verse 22).  “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” “St John’s words,” says Archbishop Trench, “seem to me decisive on the matter, that resistance to, and defiance of, Christ, not the false assumption if his character and offices, is the essential mark of Antichrist.” (Synonyms of the New Testament, by R.C. Trench, B.D., p.120  Cambridge and London, 1854) Such is Dr Trench’s opinion; but he gives no grounds for it, and we are unable to imagine any.  We draw the exactly opposite conclusion from the apostle’s words, even that the “false assumption of His character and offices” is an essential mark of Antichrist.  “He is a liar,” says John.  But if he comes boldly and truthfully avowing himself the enemy of Christ, how is he a liar?  If he avows, without concealment, his impious design of overthrowing Christ, with what truth can he be spoken of as a deceiver?  But such is the character plainly ascribed to him by John (2nd epistle, verse 7): -“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.”  Plainly the exegesis, or rather supposition, of Dr Trench is inadmissible. Dr Chalmers had no difficulty in seeing the Roman system in the “apostacy” predicted by Paul.  We find him saying in his Scripture Readings: -“Save us, O Lord, from falling away, lest we share in the perdition that waiteth on the great apostacy.  We  hold the usurpation of Rome to be evidently pointed at, and therefore let us maintain our distance, and keep up our resolute protest against its great abominations.” (Dr Chalmers’
Sabbath Scripture Readings, vol. I., p.310. Edinburgh, 1848.)

Archbishop Trench was misled, it may be, by the strength of the term deny. “He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.”  But he who does not confess when he is called to do so, denies.  Such is the use of the word in these applications all through the New Testament.  Such is the use John makes of it in this very passage: -“for many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh.”  It is clear that Antichrist, as depicted by our Lord and by His Apostle John, is to wear a mask, and to profess one thing and act another.  He is to enter the church as Judas entered the garden –professedly to kiss his Master, but in reality to betray Him.  He is to come with words of peace in his mouth but war in his heart.  He is to be a counterfeit Christ –Christ’s likeness stamped on base metal.  He is to be an imitation of Christ, -a close, clever, and astute imitation, which will deceive the world for ages, those only excepted who, taught by the Holy Spirit, shall be able to see through the disguise and detect the enemy under the mask of the friend.

Extracted from the Book entitled The Papacy Is The Antichrist By Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. AUTHOR OF “HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM,” “HISTORY OF THE SCOTISH NATION,” ETC. You can DOWNLOAD and READ the eBOOK Here for FREE in DOC format or PDF Format HERE.

The Reformers Identification of the Anti-Christ.

Posted on July 8, 2014 in Rev.17-Meet the Harlots

Pope Francis has been meeting with everyone from Muslims to Evangelicals. The Pope has in the last few months alone meet with President Obama, The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, President Vladamir Putin, various Jewish and Muslim leaders, the head of the Disciples of Christ, Kenneth Copeland and James Robinson. The Pope is working hard to bring together everyone into a since religion under Rome. However, Protestants need to be especially weary of the Pope as our forefathers taught unanimously that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ:

Martin Luther:
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” -Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197

“We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist… personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to the Antichrist.” -To the German Nobility, pg 256

William Tyndale:
`Mystery, Babylon the Great,’ written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church of Rome.”

Nicolaus Von Amsdorf:
“He (the antichrist) will be revealed and come to naught before the last day, so that every man shall comprehend and recognize that the pope is the real, true antichrist and not the vicar of Christ … Therefore those who consider the pope and his bishops as Christian shepherds and bishops are deeply in error, but even more are those who believe the the Turk (ISLAM) is the antichrist. Because the Turk (ISLAM) rules outside of the church and does not sit in the holy place, nor does he seek to bear the name of Christ, but is an open antagonist of Christ and His church. This does not need to be revealed, but it is clear and evident because he persecutes Christians openly and not as the pope does, secretly under the form of Godliness.” -Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Furnemliche und gewisse Zeichen, sig.A2r.,v.

John Knox:
Yea, to speak it in plain words; lest that we submit ourselves to Satan, thinking that we submit ourselves to Jesus Christ, for, as for your Roman kirk, as it is now corrupted, and the authority thereof, whereon stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin, of whom the apostle speaks.” -John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, p.65

John Calvin (although we do not endorse his doctrines, he agreed with the other reformers that the Papacy was the Anti-Christ:

“Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” -Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149

Thomas Cranmer:
“Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” -Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7

King James I:
“…Popery is in deed The mysterie of iniquitie…” -1605 speech to parliament “Rome is the Seat of the Antichrist.” -A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches

The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):
“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; 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.” -1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):
“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.” -1646 Westminster Confession of Faith

John Wesley:
“… 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 Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God – Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” -John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament, p.216

Charles Spurgeon:
“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.”

Prior to the reformation others cited the Papacy as the Anti-Christ as well. These include Dante Alighieri c.1310, Michael of Cesena c. 1331, Johannes de Rupescissa c.1345, Francesco Petrarch c. 1350, John Milicz c. 1367, John Wycliffe c. 1379, Mattias of Janow c.1388, R. Wimbledon c. 1389, John Purvey c. 1390, Walter Brute c. 1393, John Huss c. 1412 and Girolamo Savonarola c. 1497.

Other Post-Reformation People and Ministers who believed that the Papacy was the Anti-Christ:

George Downham c.1603
George Pacard c. 1604
Hugh Broughton c. 1607
Andress Holwig c. 1612
Mattias Hoe c.1618
Daniel Cramer c. 1618
Joseph Mede c. 1631
Johannes Gerhard c.1643
Thomas Goodwin c.165
Thomas Goodwin c.1654
JohnTilligghast c.1655
Henry More c.1664
William Sherwin c.1670
Johann H. Alsted c. 1681
Thomas Beverley c. 1684
Pierre Jurieu c.1687
Drue Cressener c. 1689
William Lowth c. 1700
Johannes Cocceius c.1701
Robert Fleming Jr. c.1701
Georg her. Giblehr c.1702
Daniel Whitby c. 1703
William Whiston c.1706
Heinrich Horch c. 1712
Charles Daubux c. 1720
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Pyle c.1735
Johann Bengel c. 1740
Berienberg Bible c. 1743
John Willison c.1745
Thomas Newton c.1754
John Gill c. 1758
Johann Petri c. 1768
Hans Wood c.1787
James Becheno c.1793
Joseph Priestly c.1794
George Bell c.1795
Christian G. Thube c.1796
David Simpson c.1797
Edward King c. 1798
Joseph Galloway c.1798
Richard Valpy c. 1798
Jean G. de la Flechers c.1798

Michael de Semlyen:
“Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.” -Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome

Recent identification of the Papacy as the Anti-Christ:South Atlantic Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, March 25, 2000:THE THREAT OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY:

Whereas: The mass media has captivated the world with the activities of Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Holy Land in March 2000; and

Whereas: The Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation have signed, in October, 1999 a joint declaration of accord on the doctrine of justification (only the synods of Wisconsin and Missouri dissented); and

Whereas: In the middle of February, 200, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat met with Pope John Paul II at the vatican to sign an agreement regarding the future of Jerusalem that warned Israel against any unilateral decision affecting Jerusalem; and
Whereas: Bob Jones University has been unjustly slandered for anti-catholic bias by Senators McCain, Torricelli, Hollings and the liberal mass media; and

Whereas: The House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress has just appointed a Roman Catholic priest as its chaplain for the first time, March 23, 2000; and

Whereas: Pope John Paul II has declared the year 2000 a “Great Jubilee Year” for Roman Catholics that establishes the restoration of indulgences, THE VERY ISSUE THAT PROMPTED MARTIN LUTHER TO DRAFT THE 95 THESES IN OCTOBER OF 1517: papal spokesman Timothy Shugrue states, “The indulgence is one of the spiritual privleges extended during Jubilee. It is a way of applying the merits of the good deeds of the saints and the Virgin Mary and CHrist Himself to the rest of us.”;

Therefore: The South Atlantic Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church, at its spring meeting in the Bible Presbyterian Church of Charlotte, N.C., March 25, 2000, resolves and warns the Roman Catholic Church, Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth (Rev 17:5) constitutes the greatest threat to fundamental Christianity in the 21st century! The Roman Catholic Church has long since forsaken the Bible alone, Grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. There should be no confraternity with this apostate church in ministerial associations, community easter sunrise services, Thanksgiving services, mass evangelism or common social endeavors. We admonish devout believers to lovingly and firmly win Roman Catholics to Christ and urge new converts to obey Rev. 18:4, “And I heard a another voice from heaven, saying, come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sin, and that ye recieve not her plagues.”

Roman Catholic Sources on the Papacy as the Anti-Christ:
“There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be divers thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders, to doubt, yea even agree with those heretics which will cause My order to divide, then will there be such universal dissentions and persecutions that if these days were not shortened even the elect would be lost” -St.Francis of Assisi

“Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” -St.Francis of Assisi

“Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ” -Fr. Sylvester Berry (1927)

“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”-Prophecy of supposed apparition of Mary, Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846

“…St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope [as the Beast of the Apocalypse].” -Catholic Encyclopedia on St.Bernard and this description of the Anti-Christ

“Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” -Bl. Joachim (d. 1202)
Antichrist…Many believe in a demonical incarnation—this will not be so—but he will be utterly possessed…His doctrine as apparent contradiction of no religion, yet a new religion…He has an attending pontiff, so separating regal and prophetic office -Frederick William Faber (died 1863)

I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was admitted in it in order to be united and to have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…I saw again a new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… – Anna-Katarina Emmerick(19th century), Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement, 1973, pp. 66, 71, 116

They wanted to make a new Church, a Church of human manufacture, but God had other designs…An anti-pope shall be set up in Rome (Yves Dupont, p. 116).

This final false prophet will be a bishop of the church and will lead all religions into becoming one.- Priest O’Connor (20th century), The False Prophet. Living in the Final Generation

How could so many people before and after the reformation be wrong about who the Mother Harlot of Revelation would be? The fact is, the papacy is the Anti-Christ. The Pope today promotes ecumenism as a “dialogue of love” in attempts to bring together all the religions of the world. Francis is using politics and strife between religions as a means of gaining the trust of the world (see Jesuit Oath). If he succeeds, and he will, many Churches will unite under the Pope. In the end all that will occur is the Pope will reunite the Mother Harlot’s offspring back to her, including the Jews. Protestants should allow this to happen to them but remain strong on their own as the true Church of Christ.

Source: Throwback Christianity