Who is the Anti-Christ?

“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 worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” II Thessalonians 2:3 & 4

“The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.” Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary 

“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.”
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

“…the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.” Lucius Ferraris

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” II Corinthians 11:13-15

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.”

‘Father’ A. Pereira says: “It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope,’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.”

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.” Revelation 13:6

Writers on the Canon Law say, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.”

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.” Catholic National, July 1895

This is but a ‘drop in the bucket’ as to what information is out there that confirms the prophetic scriptures, that the ‘little horn’, the ‘beast’, the ‘man of sin’, the ‘son of perdition’ and the ‘Antichrist’ are none other than the Pope of Rome (a successive reign) throughout history.

Behold the ‘mystery of iniquity’ which has clouded the minds of the entire world, that Almighty God’s worst enemy upon the earth is lauded, praised and venerated [worshipped] by secular and ‘Christian’ leaders alike!

(posted by Bill Hoffmann, Belize, Central America on an Arminian blog)

15 thoughts on “Who is the Anti-Christ?

  1. Irenaeus had specific things to say about where the antichrist would arise from, and Hippolytus concurs in his own writings. As they were John’s spiritual children, and insisted they were handing down as they were taught, they would be most credible, no?

    I see the man in the pointy hat as just another part of Satan’s shell game as we come to the end. A much bigger delusion is on it’s way, to deceive even the elect if it were possible, and it was all laid out long before our time with today’s myriad interpretations (2 Peter 1:20). Believers would do well to clear their “houses” of any leaven they’ve picked up along The Way.

  2. Yes, DavidW – and we know there’s no such thing as coincidence! Men of the earth crave power in this kingdom. They will have no part in the Kingdom of God.

  3. “Believers would do well to clear their “houses” of any leaven they’ve picked up along The Way.”

    Amen – there is much roman catholic leaven in the protestant churches. Revelation 17 talks of a great whore and her harlot daughters. We all know who the great whore is (as all men from Wesley to Spurgeon to Henry did), but who are these harlot daughters… that strikes a little closer to home.

    -Jim

  4. You are overlooking the obvious. When Pope Benedict XVI celebrates Mass, he is affirming the Lordship of Jesus Christ as the only Savior of the world. He is presiding over the worship on earth that is happening in heaven (Revelation) and is officiating as the Vicar of Christ (Isaiah 22:22) who has been given the keys of the kingdom by Jesus Christ as the validly ordained successor of Peter the first Pope (Matthew 16:18-19).
    You are beating a dead horse when it comes to accusing the former Cardinal Ratzinger of being the Antichrist. He would be the first one to acknowledge his need of a Savior, and of finding salvation only in Christ. By contrast the Antichrist will deny God and assume the rule of God for himself. The Pope only seeks to serve the world and lead everyone to Jesus.
    You need to read the current writings of Pope Benedict XVI, and instead learn from this holy, kind, gentle, and godly man instead of accusing him of evil, which he would be the first to denounce in himself.

  5. Isaiah 22:22 refers to Jesus Christ, not any mortal. There is NO vicar of Christ on planet Earth. Regarding Peter’s confession, I am very familiar with the twisted interpretation from Rome and offer the following for your enlightenment:

    Simon Peter himself confessed the Rock was Christ, not himself (1Pet.2:8,4)
    Paul himself confessed the Rock was Christ (1Cor.10:1-4)
    Jesus Himself said that He Himself was the rock (Matt.21:42,44, Dan.2)
    A little rock is Simon Peter and those who adopt this rock are Israel’s enemies (Deut.32:31)
    Peter was married (Matt.8)
    Peter had children (1Pet.5:13)
    Peter erred in his doctrines (Gal.2:11; 2:14)
    Peter said the supreme political power on earth was the King, not the pope (1Pet.2:13)
    Peter said Christians were priests who were called to offer Spiritual sacrifices, (1Pet.2:5), not Nicolaitanes repeating literal sacrifices (Heb.10:11)
    Peter would not allow a man to bow down in front of him (Acts 10:26)
    Peter baptized only Adults (Acts 2)
    Peter baptized Gentiles AFTER they received the Holy Spirit, not at birth (Acts 10:44-47)
    Peter wore no long robes, had no crown, sported no ring on his finger and in his latter years, preached the free Salvation of God as a Gift of Grace, apart from sacraments of any kind (Acts 15:11)
    If there was anything like Apostolic succession, (which there isn’t) your popes have failed at it miserably…

    And further –
    RCC Apostasy

    From Vatican II:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

    2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.
    Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
    The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
    3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
    Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

    For the council yearns to explain to everyone how it conceives of the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today.
    Therefore, the council focuses its attention on the world of men, the whole human family along with the sum of those realities in the midst of which it lives; that world which is the theater of man’s history, and the heir of his energies, his tragedies and his triumphs; that world which the Christian sees as created and sustained by its Maker’s love, fallen indeed into the bondage of sin, yet emancipated now by Christ, Who was crucified and rose again to break the strangle hold of personified evil, so that the world might be fashioned anew according to God’s design and reach its fulfillment.
    3. Though mankind is stricken with wonder at its own discoveries and its power, it often raises anxious questions about the current trend of the world, about the place and role of man in the universe, about the meaning of its individual and collective strivings, and about the ultimate destiny of reality and of humanity. Hence, giving witness and voice to the faith of the whole people of God gathered together by Christ, this council can provide no more eloquent proof of its solidarity with, a, well as its respect and love for the entire human family with which it is bound up, than by engaging with it in conversation about these various problems. The council brings to mankind light kindled from the Gospel, and puts at its disposal those saving resources which the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, receives from her Founder. For the human person deserves to be preserved; human society deserves to be renewed. Hence the focal point of our total presentation will be man himself, whole and entire, body and soul, heart and conscience, mind and will.
    Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs. Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served.(2)

  6. Manfred, you are dismissing Apostolic succession because the Roman Catholic church failed miserably at it? With all due respect, that is faulty reasoning. God appointed the Aaronic line to teach Israel the Way from generation to generation. Just because the Hebrew Scriptures bear witness that they failed miserably, do you discredit what God implemented?

    There certainly was Apostolic succession; Irenaeus and Hyppolytus verify this. “Against Heresies” has quite a bit to say. The Church failed to adhere to what God had established; Origen played a huge role in apostasy. He argued anyone could interpret The Scriptures for themselves, and here we are today. Never mind the admonition of 2 Peter 1:20, among those in the Hebrew Scriptures saying the same.

  7. Chris – the early church fathers got much wrong. The Aaronic line was for Israel – the earthly kingdom established to display God’s power and mercy in types and shadows until the fulness of time wherein the Lord Jesus came. There is NO evidence of apostolic succession in the Bible – it’s made up by men who want to lord their position over others.

  8. So you are saying two men who argued they were handing down as they had been taught, from Irenaeus, from Polycarp, from John, from Jesus, got it wrong. Is that logical? Because others lorded it over themselves (as many do today), does the testimony of the specific two I mentioned mean nothing? If you say it does, then

  9. ChristopherV:

    It should give one pause to consider just who determined who were to be the “Church Fathers”, given that many of them held to spurious doctrine. Some listed among those “Church Fathers” were Popes.

  10. Since we do not find any hint of this teaching in the Bible, as regards the church, the only way it could have arrived on the scene is it was made up by men. Consider the biblical evidence for the wonderful dependability and credible witness of those who not only were taught of the Lord but were appointed by Him as Apostles. Peter denied Christ 3 times and was rebuked publicly by Paul for cowardice. It’s easy to see how two or more men could agree on any given subject – and still be wrong. As it is with this issue.

  11. ” Origen played a huge role in apostasy. He argued anyone could interpret The Scriptures for themselves, and here we are today.”

    I argue that only true born again believers can interpret the scriptures for themselves and that by functioning as a many member body with each using their gift. I reject the satanic pope, his supposed apostolic succession, the idolaters that attend his satanic masses, and all the roman catholic leaven that was carried over into protestantism. -Jim

    “Since we do not find any hint of this teaching in the Bible, as regards the church, the only way it could have arrived on the scene is it was made up by men. ”

    Amen Manfred, and usually made up for the purpose of gaining religous power or filthy lucre.

    -Jim

  12. Jim, I would humbly submit that your argument regarding personal interpretation is the leaven we Protestants would do well to clean here at the end. The Scriptures aren’t meant to be interpreted by anyone (2 Peter 1:20); they are(were) meant to be explained. The Apostles received supernatural revelation to understand the (Hebrew) Scriptures (Luke 24:44-45); you read Paul mention several times he received the same, obviously calling himself and placing himself as an Apostle (certainly as humbly the “least” of the apostles). I am not saying that Apostles followed down successively to recent time. What the Apostles did do was place pastors/teachers in the first churches who were to teach as they were taught, not adding speculation, lies, or as mentioned, to lord over others. Paul in his letters to Timothy (and Titus) had very direct instructions on what was to be implemented and how. Did every teacher follow what was established? Of course not, who would foolishly argue so? There was to be a Way of handing down what was taught, and James warned of the danger of not adhering to such – a succession, that yes, was implemented by Apostles. My point of bring Origen into the conversation is that he made it very clear that he was uninterested in submitting to the authority of anyone before him; he would rather interpret as he saw fit.

    The Roman Catholic Church lost any authority it hoped to have been granted long before it became known as the Roman Catholic Church. Why would we define Apostolic succession according to apostasy? Throwing baby out with bath water doesn’t mean the baby never existed, even if the only current association is with the evil that men do.

    Manfred, men wrote the Scriptures. I’m not trying to be funny or sarcastic by stating the obvious. What I mean is that The Living Word of God inspired men to write what we read as Scripture. It didn’t happen in a time/space/cultural vacuum. God wouldn’t inspire John to close the canon with The Revelation of Jesus and not provide us evidence past that point to today of what men did to fail miserably at handing down the Teaching, but also where men did successfully hand down what they were taught, even if it those who held to truth were overrun by apostates the end of the second century, incorporating Greek philosophy and countless other nonsense.

    The evidence is overwhelming that The Church failed long before it “won” with Constantine – 2 Peter 2:1 says it so well: false teachers introducing damnable heresies. Again, I mentioned Irenaeus for a reason; he laid out at a very early point in Church history what heresies in his day constituted (amazingly, so much has continued in some form or fashion to this day). The hidden gem regards the title of this very article; Who is the Anti-Christ? He states very plainly that he received his understanding of who the Antichrist would be from those who received directly from John, the very recipient of The Revelation. Would we be so contentious as to argue that this man of God who fought nobly in his day against damnable heresies (as Defending Contending does so today) would be lording over others by writing what he did? Have you gentlemen read all five volumes? If you say no, and have no interest in doing so, what weight could you honestly then give to writings/sermons of Calvin, Spurgeon, Washer, etc? If the very argument this man presented that he was handing down as he was taught (he verified completely with Scripture mind you) is summarily rejected, what basis is there to determine anything? Would John know what he was writing? Would John follow the instruction of Christ to make disciples?

    I have no interest in winning an argument with anyone. I didn’t “figure” this all out, and I certainly am not interacting to satisfy my ego – by the grace of God I am learning from someone I believe is called by God as a Teacher. Gentlemen, you provide testimony to the love you have for our Lord Jesus Christ. If error is shown to us, do we say “no, I’m good where I’m at” (knowing that Jesus only spoke in parables, and said anyone not willing to forsake ALL for Him is not worthy to be His)?

    Paul in Thessalonians and John in Revelation wrote of a delusion that God would send to those who had no love for the Truth here at the end. That is exactly what the cleaning of leaven from houses was intended to show, and Jesus verified in his warning to His disciples (beware the leaven of the Pharisees, Catholic and Protestant alike). Revelation 22:18-19 is warning that we as believers somehow ignore or expect to be other than what it says. As we read in Scripture, this is the last hour. John 9:41 speaks.

  13. “Jim, I would humbly submit that your argument regarding personal interpretation is the leaven we Protestants would do well to clean here at the end. ”

    I was not speaking of “personal interpretation” – just New Testament christianity as clearly outlined in the word of God – brought to life in the heart of a true saint, not as a dead letter but a living word. Rome brought us a clergy-laity system and the dark ages. Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit and many gifts in the Church used for building up of the body and leading into maturity (in practice and doctrine).

    And, I am not a “protestant”. I am a Christian, Jesus saved me, I am His. I am not a member of any religous camp.

    -Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s