“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” (2 Thess 2.3).
My heart is heavy today because the flock of Christ has not been spared from being devoured by grievous wolves who have entered in among us. Through church history countless souls have been massacred, and even today false teachers keep speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore we must watch and remember how for many years we have been warned by faithful men, most of whom died long ago, and yet speak by their writings (Acts 20.29-31). Today’s pastors in general may be less discerning than they were, and our churches more vulnerable to the ravaging menace which is the Roman Papacy.
Right before our very eyes, we are witnessing the Romanization of large segments of evangelicalism. Multitudes of evangelicals and their churches have imbibed the doctrines, spirit, and methodology of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Worship services of supposedly evangelical churches are gradually losing the plain exposition of Scripture for a spectacle of manmade rituals and performances, many taken from the RCC liturgy. Our departure today from a more traditional sermon on “Easter Sunday” may offend some, and that illustrates the pervasive influence of Rome’s liturgical and syncretistic calendar. “‘Easter’ derives from the Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring (Eostre or Ostara).”1 There is no biblical warrant for such an annual holy day. Every Lord’s Day is a remembrance of the risen Savior, but we digress.
My thesis is simple. The universal judgment of discerning church leaders, yesterday and today, is that
The Pope of Rome is either the Antichrist or an antichrist; therefore, we ought to oppose him and his religion.
My demonstration of the thesis is not simple by necessity, as it is a very complex topic raising a host of issues which are intricate in three ways—exegetically, theologically, and historically. We plead your careful and sustained attention, and we will do all we can to convey truth and sustain your interest.
OLD PROTESTANTS AND THE PAPAL ANTICHRIST
By “old” I mean men who lived before the 20th century, especially those who were part of the Protestant Reformation (c. 16th-17th centuries) and their more immediate heirs. I use the term “Protestant” in its theological and historical sense, where it denotes
a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the RCC and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches. . . . Protestants are so called after the declaration (protestatio) of Martin Luther and his supporters dissenting from the decision of the Diet of Spires (1529), which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation. All Protestants reject the authority of the Papacy, both religious and political, and find authority in the text of the Bible.2
Discovering the views of old Protestants on the Pope is not hard because they practically spoke with one voice and judgment. Their strong unity is evident from the fact that their interpretation on this made its way into their most important consensus documents, namely, their confessions of faith. Plainly they believed to know God’s mind on the matter because they appealed to Scripture for justification of their conclusions.
Their Conception
For example, our own 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (first appeared in 1677) offers an important and typical statement, identical with the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order(1658, a Congregational statement).
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, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming (XXVI.4).
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a subordinate standard of Presbyterians, is similar.
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] (XXV.6, brackets indicate future omission).
Finally, the Second Helvetic Confession (c. 1562, the oldest among these), elaborates helpfully:
Christ the Sole Head of the Church. It is the head which has the preeminence in the body, and from it the whole body receives life; by its spirit the body is governed in all things; from it, also, the body receives increase, that it may grow up. Also, there is one head of the body, and it is suited to the body. Therefore the Church cannot have any other head besides Christ. . . . And therefore we do not approve of the doctrine of the Roman clergy, who make their Pope at Rome the universal shepherd and supreme head of the Church Militant here on earth, and so the very vicar of Jesus Christ, who has (as they say) all fullness of power and sovereign authority in the Church. For we teach that Christ the Lord is, and remains the only universal pastor, the highest Pontiff before God the Father; and that in the Church he himself performs all the duties of a bishop or pastor, even to the world’s end; and therefore does not need a substitute for one who is absent. For Christ is present with his Church, and is its life-giving Head. 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 2 Pet 2, and Paul in Acts 20.2 [20.30?]; 2 Cor 11.2; 2 Thess 2, and also in other places.
While the word “antichrist” is missing in this statement, the implication is undeniably there, for they expose the error that the Pope of Rome is “the very vicar of Jesus Christ,” and they deny the need of any “substitute.” The Greek lexicography of “antichrist” suggests both the one instead of Christ and against Christ.3 Further, the explicit reference to 2 Thess 2 in this connection makes their view plain enough, since the “man of sin” and “son of perdition” (2 Thess 2.3) are certainly titles for the Antichrist. The strength of their convictions on this matter comes out from their condemnation of “whoever contradicts and opposes this plain truth” as being among deluded reprobates.
In keeping with modern futurist notions of the Antichrist as a particular individual yet to appear, we may easily misunderstand what our spiritual forebears meant by so identifying the Pope. In general, they were historicists in their approach to biblical prophecy, interpreting the book of Revelation, for example, as being progressively fulfilled through the stages of church history. In their view, the Antichrist had been a constant reality opposing the true church for centuries at least. Hence their doctrinal statement that “the Pope of Rome is that Antichrist” of Scripture pertains not to any particular individual, but to the institution of the Papacy in apostate Christendom.
The Reformers equated Antichrist with the Papacy, as had some medieval theologians—Gregory I, who taught that whoever assumed the title “universal priest” was Antichrist’s forerunner; Joachim of Floris, and Wycliffe. Luther, Calvin, the translators of the AV, and the authors of the Westminster Confession concurred in this identification.4
16th-century Protestants developed the idea that the major biblical accounts of antichrist refer to a specific historical entity, but not to an individual man. Instead, they identified antichrist with an institutional succession of men over several centuries: the Roman Papacy. This remained the dominant view until the 19th century. 5
Realizing that this is what the old Protestants meant may help us sympathize with their conclusions.
Their Proclamation
The old Protestants did not hold this as a closet opinion but proclaimed it to their congregations and the world. They judged the Pope’s wide influence to be pernicious and dangerous to the souls of men, one that required strong, impassioned, denunciatory preaching. We can do no better here than to let them speak for themselves. The substance of their remarks overlaps some other aspects of our topic, but we cite them as decisive proof of the historic Reformed repudiation of Romanism and identification of the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist.
Martin Luther (1483-1546): If there were nothing else to show that the Pope is Antichrist, this would be enough. Dost thou hear this, O Pope! not the most holy, but the most sinful? Would that God would hurl thy Chair headlong from heaven, and cast it down into the abyss of hell! Who gave you the power to exalt yourself above your God? . . . God has commanded to keep faith and observe oaths even with enemies; you dare to cancel this command, laying it down in your heretical, antichristian decretals, that you have power to do so; and through your mouth and your pen Satan lies as he never lied before, teaching you to twist and pervert the Scriptures according to your own arbitrary will. O, Lord Christ! look down upon this, let Thy day of judgment come and destroy the Devil’s lair at Rome. Behold him of whom St. Paul spoke (2 Thess 2.3-4), that he should exalt himself above Thee and sit in Thy Church, showing himself as God—the man of sin, and the child of damnation. What else does the Pope’s power do, but teach and strengthen sin and wickedness, leading souls to damnation in Thy name?6
Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556): Referring to the prophecies in Revelation and Daniel, he said, “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the Pope to be the very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.”7
John Knox (1505-1572): Knox wrote to abolish “that tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church” and that the Pope should be recognized as “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” 8
John Calvin (1509-1564): To some we seem slanderers and railers when we call the Roman pontiff “Antichrist.” But those who think so do not realize they are accusing Paul of intemperate language [in 2 Thess 2], after whom we speak, indeed, so speak from his very lips. And lest anyone object that we wickedly twist Paul’s words (which apply to another) against the Roman pontiff, I shall briefly show that these cannot be understood otherwise than of the Papacy.9
Roger Williams (1603-1683): He spoke of the Pope as “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself … speaking against the God of Heaven, thinking to changed times and laws: but he is the son of perdition (2 Thess 2).”10
Cotton Mather (1663-1728): The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them. 11
John Wesley (1703-1791): On 2 Thess 2.3, he wrote, “In many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles [man of sin, son of perdition]. 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 honor; 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 11.1. Declaring himself that he is God – Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.”12
Charles Hodge (1797-1878): “The common opinion, however, among Protestants is, that the prophecies concerning Antichrist have special reference to the Papacy. This conviction is founded principally on the remarkable prediction contained in Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians.” Following this, Hodge defends the opinion in great and strongly-argued detail, suggesting it was his own judgment. Then he describes the RC doctrine of Antichrist and concludes that modern Protestant teaching in this area is more similar to the RCC view than to the early Protestants. 13
C. 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 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.14
R. L. Dabney (1820-1898): For Presbyterians of all others to discount the perpetual danger from Romanism is thoroughly thoughtless and rash. We believe that the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Prelacy and Popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total extirpation. Why should not the same cause tend to work the same result again? Are we truer or wiser Presbyterians than those trained by the apostles? Have the enemies of truth become less skillful and dangerous by gaining the experience of centuries? The popish system of ritual and doctrine was a gradual growth, which, modifying true Christianity, first perverted and then extinguished it. Its destructive power has resulted from this: that it has not been the invention of any one cunning and hostile mind, but a gradual growth, modified by hundreds or thousands of its cultivators, who were the most acute, learned, selfish, and anti-Christian spirits of their generations, perpetually retouched and adapted to every weakness and every attribute of depraved human nature, until it became the most skillful and pernicious system of error which the world has ever known. As it has adjusted itself to every superstition, every sense of guilt, every foible and craving of the depraved human heart, so it has travestied with consummate skill every active principle of the Gospel. It is doubtless the ne plus ultra [the most extreme example of its kind] of religious delusion, the final and highest result of perverted human faculty guided by the sagacity of the great enemy.
This system has nearly conquered Christendom once. He who does not see that it is capable of conquering it again is blind to the simplest laws of thought. One may ask, Does it not retain sundry of the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel, monotheism, the trinity, the hypostatic union, Christ’s sacrifice, the sacraments, the resurrection, the judgment, immortality? Yes; in form it retains them, and this because of its supreme cunning. It retains them while so wresting and enervating as to rob them mainly of their sanctifying power, because it designs to spread its snares for all sorts of minds of every grade of opinion. The grand architect was too cunning to make it, like his earlier essays, mere atheism, or mere fetishism, or mere polytheism, or mere pagan idolatry; for in these forms the trap only ensnared the coarser and more ignorant natures. He has now perfected it and baited it for all types of humanity, the most refined as well as the most imbruted.15
Surely these statements we have easily discovered from our own resources are merely representative of a much larger body of old Protestant preaching that addressed these matters in the same way, though now lost to us. The unity of judgment and attitude among these giants of the faith is stunning, especially when contrasted with modern timidity and diversity of opinion on the same topic today.
As a representation of the strength of their certainty, we cite one more paragraph from an old Protestant about this matter. Truly, they held judgment about the papal Antichrist as an article of faith.
The whole economy of Redemption, and the whole course of History are the broad [underlying structures] on which the argument is based and built up; and the author humbly submits that it
cannot be overturned, or the conclusion arrived at set aside, without dislocating and shaking the structure of both Revelation and providence. The same line of proof which establishes that Christ is the promised Messiah, conversely applied, establishes that the Roman system is the predicted Apostasy. 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.16
Their Justification
Besides their faithful pulpit ministries denouncing the Papacy, the old Protestants developed a body of scholarly literature to demonstrate in many ways the soundness of their convictions. In keeping with sola Scriptura, the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation which they held so dear, they constantly made their appeal to the Bible itself. They found the Antichrist described clearly enough there, and when they beheld what the Papacy had become, they saw a perfect match. Spiritual discernment and integrity requires that he who corresponds in all respects to the biblical description of the Antichrist must be recognized as the Antichrist. Admittedly, since neither the RCC nor the Papacy are mentioned explicitly by name in the Scriptures, human judgment was involved in making the identification with Antichrist, and the old Protestants were not infallible. Still, I am persuaded that modern Reformed Christians, even pastors, are generally unfamiliar with the many lines of argument advocated by their predecessors, and from a state of ignorance about this topic they dismiss the old position out of hand without due consideration. Further, I believe that thoughtful men studying their case for the Papal Antichrist will certainly gain more respect for it, even when they feel they must withhold full assent. This has been my own experience.
Because the topic turns out to be much larger than we might have expected before investigating it, we can only provide a brief survey of its major features, both Scripturally and apologetically. Our two lists are not exhaustive by any means.
Major Biblical Passages on the Antichrist
The Bible only uses the term “antichrist” in four places, and these are limited to John’s epistles, but it is generally acknowledged by biblical scholars that the evil eschatological figure is the subject of other important passages. We would cite them and note some of their important contributions to understanding the biblical doctrine of antichrist.
1. The little horn in Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (Dan 7.7-8, 19-25). “The four kingdoms have been widely understood since Josephus (1st century A.D.) to be the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.” 17The little horn or Antichrist is a ruler that arises from Rome at the end of the Roman empire, comparable to Rome’s earlier rulers but “diverse from the first” (7.24), “little” (7.8), and yet “whose look was more stout than his fellows” (7.20). This Antichrist is characterized by “a mouth speaking great [even ‘very great’] things” (7.8, 20) “against the most High” (7.25), “making war with the saints, and prevailing against them” (7.21), “wearing out the saints of the most High” (7.25), “thinking to change times and laws” (7.25), and continuing his evil career as long as the Roman empire continues, which is until “the Ancient of days comes, and judgment is given to the saints of the most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom” (7.22). This most certainly must ultimately refer to the second coming of Christ and the beginning of the eternal state.
2. The self-willed king described after Daniel’s prophecy of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) (Dan 11.36-12.3). The preceding part of Daniel’s prophecy here (11.21-35) has been fulfilled historically in events associated with Antiochus IV, but the prophecy of 11.36 onward “cannot be harmonized with events surrounding the death of Antiochus IV. For this reason . . . interpreters understand these verses to describe the Antichrist, who like Antiochus IV will persecute God’s people [up to and (?), DSM] just prior to the Second Advent of Christ (12.1-3).” 18Antiochus IV seems to have been a historical type of that Antichrist to come. This portrait of him has common elements with other similar passages, and also complements them with further information. He will be particularly characterized by an unchallengeable sovereignty, for he “shall do according to his will” (Dan 11.36a). He will commit the most idolatrous self-exaltation (11.36b, 37d) and speak against the God who is over all the false gods of the nations (11.36c), and “he will prosper till the indignation be accomplished” (11.36d), apparently referring to the great wrath of God on Judgment Day. He will display an open contempt for the God revered by his “fathers” (11.37a; predecessors before the apostasy, ?), and no apparent desire for women (11.37b) or regard for any idol deity of the heathen (11.37c). He will acquire an increasing power and glory both for himself and others, and he will widely distribute land holdings (11.39). His wealth will become immense (11.43). News of trouble from the north and east will provoke him to wage a war in which he would with great fury destroy and annihilate many (11.44). Just prior to a general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, in a time of great trouble unprecedented in the history of the world, the people of God would be mightily delivered from this oppressor once and for all (12.1-3).
3. The man of sin and son of perdition whom Paul associated with impending apostasy (2 Thess 2.1-12). This may be the most exegetically-rich passage of divinely-revealed truth about the Antichrist. Let us postpone its exposition for later in this message.
4. The antichrists of John’s epistles (1 John 2.18, 22; 4.3; 2 John 7). These are the only places in Scripture using the actual term “antichrist,” and John makes it clear that there were already many “antichrists” living in his own day, false teachers who are comparable to the Antichrist yet to come, and distinct from him. These antichrists are a signal that “the last time” had already begun (1 John 2.18). They attack a major doctrine of the Christian faith, namely, that Jesus is the Christ (2.22) and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (4.3; 2 John 7). This is the “spirit of antichrist” which would be most clearly seen in the great and yet future Antichrist, not yet appearing in John’s day.
5. The beast in John’s vision on the isle of Patmos (Rev 13.1-18). Some points of similarity with Daniel’s little horn are conspicuous. Both possess great power and authority (Rev 13.2, 7b), gain great admiration (13.4b, 8), have a mouth speaking great things (13.5), even blasphemy against God (13.6). Both wage war against the saints and overcome them to some degree (13.7a). John’s vision adds more important detail about this Antichrist. He possesses a worldwide dominion “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (13.7b). He also speaks against God’s “tabernacle” (the true church where God’s presence especially dwells, perhaps the “church militant” on earth), and against “them that dwell in heaven” (the “church triumphant”). He demands allegiance under threat of the death penalty (13.16-17). Finally, the beast has a number, “the number of a man,” and his number is 666 (13.18).
6. The beast reappearing in the overthrow of Babylon (Rev 17-18). The dominant truth about the Antichrist in these chapters is his certain doom and overthrow by Christ at His Second Coming. Upon the beast rides a harlot (17.3) with the title, “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (17.5), and she is “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (17.6). This beast came from the bottomless pit and will be cast into the lake of fire (17.8; 19.20). The beast has seven heads which represent seven mountains on which the woman sat (17.7, 9). “Rome was popularly known in the ancient world as a ‘city of seven hills.’” 19 Here it seems to be called Babylon in a pejorative and figurative way as the locus of idolatry and immorality.
Major Old Protestant Arguments for the Papal Antichrist
Just to review these Scripture texts with the Papacy in mind is suggestive and impressive. The Old Protestants took these and other Bible passages and crafted an elaborate case that the Papacy is the eschatological Antichrist presented in them. The mountain of evidence-laden arguments is even larger than the biblical source material from which it comes, so our presentation must be even more abridged. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
For further study of this fascinating subject, see the following treatises:
“Francis Turretin’s 7th Disputation Whether It Can Be Proven the Pope of Rome Is the Antichrist” (17thcentury, 75 pages) is a work displaying the author’s characteristically relentless logic and impeccable scholarship (cf. his three-volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology), presenting fifty major points in favor of his affirmation of the Papal identity of the Antichrist. It has been recently translated from Latin into English for the first time and is available through the Internet. 20
Another important and slightly more modern treatment is, “The Papacy Is the Antichrist” (1888, 50 pages) by Rev. J. A. Wylie, also author of the magisterial and reliable three-volume History of Protestantism which we recommend strongly for every pastor’s library. Wylie presents 27 chapters of argumentation, comparing the biblical revelation with historical facts and concluding that the Antichrist can be no other than the Papacy. Wylie’s testimony is particularly valuable given his intimate familiarity with many relevant details of church history—in particular the long war between the principles of Romanism and Protestantism. A popular abridgement of Wylie’s paper on the Antichrist is available online. 21
A sermonic treatment is made by the Rev. Henry Wilkinson, “sometime Canon of Christ Church, and Margaret-Professor of Divinity, in the University of Oxford,” entitled, “The Pope of Rome Is Antichrist,” one of the Puritan sermons preached from 1659-1689 during the famed morning exercises at Cripplegate” by 75 ministers of the gospel in or near London, including such luminaries as Richard Baxter, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Manton, John Owen, Matthew Poole, Richard Steele, and Thomas Watson, to name a few. Wilkinson’s one sermon on the topic is 25 pages of small print.22
Our summary of major old Protestant arguments is taken from Wilkinson’s sermon. It appears that the most important biblical text old Protestants found to identify the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist was 2 Thess 2.1- 12, although even in the exposition of this text they brought in the others we have cited and many more biblical citations besides. While a sermon is less compelling than a confession of faith as a consensus document, it remains as suggestive evidence that the views of Rev. Wilkinson upon this topic were generally shared by his pastoral brethren in that time and place, spiritual giants whose biblical ministries are still bearing much fruit in our own lives and churches.
The “spinal” structure of Wilkinson’s sermon consists mainly of nine “vertebra” headings, each being a characteristic mark of the Antichrist in 2 Thess 2. The “ribs” of each heading (A’s below) are expositions of phrases in the biblical text, and the “flesh” supported by the ribs (B’s below) is so many demonstrations that the very same marks are plainly seen in the Papacy. We are taking liberty to paraphrase and abridge considerably.
1. The Antichrist’s Rise and Reign Will Coincide with the Predicted Grand Apostasy.
A. 2 Thess 2.3, “that day [the day of Christ, 2.2; the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him, 2.1] shall not come, except there come a falling way [i.e., apostasy] first, and that man of sin be revealed.” This is the religious apostasy of 1 Tim 4.1-3 associated with false teachers who are “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.” In this great apostasy the visible church of Christ will fall away from Him and from the true gospel.
B. Enforced celibacy and religious dietary laws are old and well-known traits of Romanism. This very apostasy had begun markedly toward the end of the fourth century (c. 396 A.D.), when men of stature like Jerome and Augustine complained of prohibitions of marriage and meats and how the church had fallen from her primitive purity. This was the same time period when the Roman Empire fell and the Papacy began its gradual rise. The church’s doctrinal and spiritual falling away made room for the rise of the Antichrist, and the rise of the Antichrist was a catalyst for greater apostasy. Both correspond to the Papacy; therefore, it is the Antichrist.
2. The Antichrist Will Prove To Be the “Man of Sin” and “Son of Perdition.”
A. 2 Thess 2.3, “man of sin” and “son of perdition;” 2 Thess 2.8, “the Wicked [One].” These are Hebraisms (Hebrew figures of speech) to indicate one superlatively characterized by the marks mentioned, i.e., a true chief of sinners, and one most greatly destined for perdition [destruction] and an instrument of perdition against others. This personage is a wicked, cruel destroyer, the greatest human enemy of mankind, in league with the Devil himself, the worst and greatest foe of Christ’s true church and people.
B. This characterization perfectly fits the Papacy, but it is beyond the scope of this sermon to recount its tyranny, cruelty, greed, blasphemy, and fornication both spiritual and physical. The Papacy continually resists Christ’s rule mediated through His Word, and has martyred countless true believers through the centuries of church history. If these epithets from the Holy Spirit do properly belong to the Papacy, then we may conclude it in particular is being described here.
3. The Antichrist Will Sit in God’s Temple.
A. 2 Thess 2.4, “he as God sitteth in the temple of God.” The temple is the house of God’s worship, and in the New Testament figuratively describes the visible church (1 Cor 3.16; 2 Cor 6.16; Eph 2.21). It is absurd to take this as a literal Temple building in literal, earthly Jerusalem, when that seems improbable given the current situation there.
B. Besides, this prophecy fits so obviously with the Papacy, who resides in a body that regards itself as the true and only Church of Christ. If one objects that this interpretation fails because the RCC, far from being Christ’s church, is really a synagogue of Satan, we insist that Scripture often calls things according to their profession and reputation rather than their reality, and according to what they once were rather than what they are now (Abigail called “the wife of Nabal” though he was dead, 1 Sam 30.5; Jerusalem called “the faithful city” and a “harlot,” Isa 1.21).
4. The Antichrist Will Indulge Supreme Self-Exaltation.
A. 2 Thess 2.4, he “exalteth himself above all that is called God,” “he as God . . . showing himself that he is God.” This means that the Antichrist takes to himself the honor due to God Himself and due to God alone. The Antichrist insists upon adoration from the world’s highest rulers (called “gods,” Psa 82.1, 6). Whoever does these things must be the Antichrist described in this passage.
B. Romanism has insisted that the title God properly belongs to the Pope, that he has virtually all the offices and excellencies of Christ, that the Pope actually does more than God, since the Pope can dispense with things forbidden by God, that the Pope is absolutely free from all civil powers and actually above them all. Consider these primary source quotes: “Since the Pope is God, therefore he cannot either be bound or loosed by men” (Vide Text. Decret., dist. xcvi. cap. 7). “From this it appears that the Pope is above Scripture, councils, princes, and all powers upon earth, upon the account of his divinity” (canon law set forth by Gregory XIII in 1591 A.D.). Papal decrees are often equated with Scripture in divine authority, and sometimes even considered more authoritative than Scripture:
“The Scriptures have no authority so as to procure belief of them, unless they can be first canonized by the Pope” (decret., lib. ii. tit. 23, De Præsumptionibus, cap. 1). These and countless other examples of the boasting Papacy are fully consistent with the character of the Antichrist in 2 Thess 2.4, and no other religious institution can make a comparable claim to this notoriety.
5. The Antichrist Will Appear When That Which Hinders Is Taken Out of the Way.
A. 2 Thess 2.6-8, “And now you know what is restraining, that he [Antichrist] may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He [mg., he] who now restrains will do so until He [mg., he] is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed” (NKJV). In Paul’s day, something or someone was restraining and hindering the revelation of the Antichrist to the world. Early Christian scholars (Jerome, Tertullian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine) were one in their opinion that this was the Roman Empire. Ancient Christians prayed for the Roman Empire to last long so Antichrist’s coming might be delayed. It is believed that Paul did not mention the Roman Empire by name in this text to help his brethren avoid more persecution. The personal pronoun “he” may be explained as a personification of the Roman empire or a reference to the Roman emperor, which would both fall at the same time.
B. It is established history that Roman imperial power kept out Roman papal power which finally did grow out of its ruins. The bishop of Rome was kept from the great stature associated with the Papacy by Roman emperors until the emperors were no more. Because the Papacy sprang up immediately after and as a consequence of the fall of the Roman Empire which hindered it, the Papacy must therefore be the Antichrist.
6. The Antichrist Will Rise and Reign with “the Mystery of Iniquity.”
A. 2 Thess 2.7, “for the mystery of iniquity doth already work.” This is to be contrasted with the “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim 3.16), which is the Christian faith, undiscoverable except by divine revelation. Even so, the mystery of iniquity is that elaborate system of false religion that is so subtle and cunning no mere man could have conceived it, but it has been hatched in hell and progressively revealed by the Devil to his servants, veritable “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4.1). Elements of this hellish mystery include “speaking lies in hypocrisy” (1 Tim 4.2), having a form of godliness while denying its power (2 Tim 3.5), “secretly bringing in destructive heresies” under the pretense of truth (2 Pet 2.1), and all this toward the destruction of the true religion of Christ. This mystery of iniquity already at work in the days of the apostles was destined to increase in the latter days.
B. The rise of the Papacy was attended historically with just such things as the NT prophets foresaw, even this demonic scheme of false doctrines parading as the true, and tending to the subversion of countless souls. Since there is no other comparable grand false religion masquerading as true Christianity under the pretense of being Christ’s true church besides that headed by the Pope of Rome, how can we avoid the conclusion that he is the very Antichrist predicted in this passage?
7. The Antichrist Will Come with Satanic Powers of Deception.
A. 2 Thess 2.9-11, “his coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish . . . and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” This description pertains not only to Antichrist’s initial arrival into the world, but also to his extended career, and the means by which he increases his power over men. Satan is known for being a liar and a murderer, and his servant the Antichrist will be characterized by contradicting God’s truth in Scripture and slaughtering men’s souls with many plausible but insubordinate lies. Scripture frequently connects idolatry with lies and deception, and we may thus expect the Antichrist to promote idolatry. Further, the “signs and wonders” are supposed and counterfeit miracles that are used to support the claims of Antichrist to divine authority.
B. The Papacy has in all ages since its inception gained adherents by lying idolatries, even setting up images as aids to and objects of adoration, and thus kept men from Christ the ascended Savior. Further, its claims to legitimacy by countless alleged miracles through the centuries are well-known. What pseudo-Christian religion has exhibited such Satanic powers of deception as that elaborate spiritual hoax headed by the Papacy? Therefore it must be the Antichrist foretold here.
8. The Antichrist Will Be Destroyed Gradually and Suddenly by Christ.
A. 2 Thess 2.8, “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” The principle efficient cause of the Antichrist’s ruin is the coming of the true Christ to set up His kingdom. This is further described in the victories of Christ over His enemies in the book of Revelation (especially the fifth, sixth, and seventh vials, the destruction of the great harlot, the overthrow of the beast and the false prophet, the binding of Satan, and the reign of saints on the earth, all Christ’s own doing after His ascension to heaven). The ruin of Antichrist comes in two ways. First, he will be gradually consumed (so the Greek) by the spirit of His mouth, which indicates the words of the true gospel, proclaimed by true ministers of Christ through centuries of this present age. Second, Antichrist shall be suddenly destroyed by the glorious appearance of Jesus Christ in His own person at the very end of this age.
B. After the Papacy’s precipitous rise through the Dark Ages, the Protestant Reformation in which the true gospel has been more widely and faithfully proclaimed has begun to effect the Papacy’s demise. And we may fully anticipate that when Christ returns literally in power and glory, as He will destroy all His enemies of every kind in the world, so He will deal most ruinously with the Papacy, which is the epitome of blasphemy against His holy name.
9. The Antichrist Will Have a Host of Reprobate Followers.
A. 2 Thess 2.10-12, “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Followers of Antichrist are those who willfully reject the true doctrine and worship of Christ, and stubbornly hold fast to the false doctrine and idolatrous worship of the Antichrist, despite the plainest biblical evidence that it is wicked, and they take much pleasure in those false ways of unrighteousness, which are most destructive to souls and displeasing to God. Moreover, they are manifestly hardened in error as God’s judgment for their sins, so that if any of them do repent and embrace the truth, it is a stunning display of divine grace and power.
B. From all this it is obvious that the Papacy is the Antichrist. When every single one of these particulars meet in the Papacy according to the common consent and judgment of orthodox writers, the Pope will never be able by all his skill to escape the divine vengeance which will follow him on that account.
Thus the old Protestants most definitely concluded with one mind that:
The Pope of Rome is the Antichrist; therefore, we ought to oppose him and his religion.
Notes:
1 Harper’s Bible Dictionary, in loc.
2 New Oxford American Dictionary, in loc.
3 “Meaning of the word. — Some maintain (e.g. Greswell) that Antichrist can mean only ‘false Christ,’ taking ἀντί in the sense of ‘instead.’ But this is undue refinement: ἀντί bears the sense of ‘against’ as well as ‘instead of,’ both in classical and N.T. usage. So ajntikth>sesqai means to gain instead of, while ajntile>gein means to speak against. The word doubtless includes both meanings — ‘pseudo-Christ’ as well as ‘opposed to Christ’” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong, in loc.).
4 In loc., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell, ed.
5 In loc., New Dictionary of Theology, Ferguson, Wright, Packer, eds.
6 First Principles of the Reformation, available at http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Luther0155/FirstPrinciples/HTMLs/0224_Pt04_Address.html
7 Works, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7, cited at http://www.challies.com/archives/000338.php
8 The Zurich Letters, p. 199, cited at http://www.swrb.com/newbooks/newbT.htm
9 Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.VII.25, Battles translation.
10 Taken from The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 52, by Leroy Froom.
11 Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113, cited at http://www.historicist.com/articles2/delusion.htm
12 Wesley’s Notes.
13 Systematic Theology, “§ 6 – Antichrist,” III.812-836. Excerpt attached.
14 “Pray for Jesus,” sermon #717 in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12.
15 “The Attractions of Popery,” available at http://www.biblebb.com/files/rcc-attractions.htm
16 J. A. Wylie, “The Papacy Is Antichrist” (c. 1888, from Preface).
17 New Geneva Study Bible, at Dan 2.37-40.
18 Ibid., at Dan 11.36-12.3
19 G. K. Beale, NIGTC: The Book of Revelation, p. 870.
20 http://www.iconbusters.com
21 http://www.ianpaisley.org, “The Pope Is the Antichrist,” by Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley.
22 Puritan Sermons 1659-1689, VI.1.
23 “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” (1994), “The Gift of
Salvation” (1998, on the gospel and justification), “Your Word Is Truth” (2002, on Scripture and tradition), “The Communion of Saints” (2003, on “the nature of our life together” as “communion in the communio of the life of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”), and “The Call to Holiness” (2005, “ways in which our communities and their individual members must foster and embody holiness”), available at http://www.firstthings.com/collections/coll-ECT.html
Posted with permission. All rights reserved.