Who was the Antichrist according to the early Protestant Reformers?

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is quite a stretch to say that Jesus made a play on words, talking in Koine Greek, which He would have had no reason to do talking to a fisherman who used Aramaic as He did.

Remember, the accusation by the fire that Peter was indeed with Jesus - "your speech gives you away".

The term "antichrist" was only used by John.

That the Reformers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, thought of the papacy as antichrist probably has much merit.

That FUTURISM had its origin in the counter-reformation does NOT have merit.

Futurism was the eschatological view of ECF up to Augustine, it was premillennialism but not PreTRIB... aka Chiliasm

To attribute the totally opposite eschatologies, Futurism and Preterism, to the counter-reformation - is Catholic-bashing hoopla.

Futurism was extinct amongst true Reformers, in their accurate recognition of the apostate papacy as the predominant antichrist of their era (but, consistent with John, not a singular Antichrist of all time).

Had chiliastic ECFs survived to the time of the Reformation, they too would undoubtedly have experienced the same accurate recognition as all other true Reformers.

Both today's futurism and preterism originated in the counter-reformation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tra Phull
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,777
3,419
Non-dispensationalist
✟359,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Yes, they all tied the arch villain to being the pope/papacy. It does not mean they were right, though. It also doesn't mean they were lying, as some have said. They were just mistaken.

But it is easy to see their reasoning at the time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Original Happy Camper

One of GODS Children I am a historicist
Site Supporter
Mar 19, 2016
4,195
1,970
Alabama
✟486,806.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, they all tied the arch villain to being the pope/papacy. It does not mean they were right, though. It also doesn't mean they were lying, as some have said. They were just mistaken.

But it is easy to see their reasoning at the time.

considering the attitude and works of the RC church at that time I do not think they were mistaken but inspired by GOD. Do you believe righteousness by faith is a mistake also?

It was not GOD's doing that millions lost their lives for reading his word.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad

against me = anti christ
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,777
3,419
Non-dispensationalist
✟359,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
considering the attitude and works of the RC church at that time I do not think they were mistaken but inspired by GOD. Do you believe righteousness by faith is a mistake also?
What I was referring to as the reformers being mistaken on was their conclusion that the pope/papacy was/is the arch villain of the end times.
 
Upvote 0

Tra Phull

Ecumenical Loose Canon
Oct 24, 2019
1,248
684
Waco
✟45,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When Revelation was written, THE PAPACY would have meant NOTHING to 1st century Christians.

Early date or late date, as early as 66 AD, as late as 95 AD, doesn't matter - the point is - what would THE PAPACY mean to the original recipients of Revelation, and the answer is nothing, nada, null set.

A good point in interpreting Revelation is "what would things mean to the original audience - 7 actual churches in Asia Minor"?

Speculation that the 7 churches can represent "the church in various stages of history" are just so much speculation.

We have "antichrist" written of by John who says "even now are there Many antichrists". We have Paul in Thessalonians saying man of sin/son of perdition is being withheld - is this the First Beast of Revelation? Is it the LITTLE HORN of Daniel?
 
Upvote 0

Tra Phull

Ecumenical Loose Canon
Oct 24, 2019
1,248
684
Waco
✟45,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The OP asks who was the Antichrist to the early Reformers - that the Pope was, can surely be maintained.

But not every PROTESTANT has a direct link back to one of the REFORMERS. Church of England, Anglicans, Episcopalians - their origin is linked to the unspiritual reason that Henry 8th couldn't get another divorce from Pope and so he started his own church. Methodists began as a movement within Church of England.

Ask yourselves what things in Revelation could mean to a 1st century Christian.

Mark of the beast had to mean something to them, and it was not a computer chip.

Beast himself had a meaning, and could not have been PAPACY as it came to be known in subsequent centuries - papacy had no such power in the 1st century.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What I was referring to as the reformers being mistaken on was their conclusion that the pope/papacy was/is the arch villain of the end times.

An "arch villain of the end times" is the conclusion of modernist dispensational futurism. It was not the conclusion of the Reformers.

They were well acquainted with John's epistles, and understood that the apostate papacy was the predominant antichrist of their era, but not the "arch villain of the end times".

The "arch villain of the end times" antichrist is found in the counter-reformation's Jesuit Francisco Ribera's In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarii. This is the antichrist of modernist dispensational futurism.

God raised up the Reformers to reclaim His true Church from spiritual darkness and oppression.

Unlike today's modernist dispensational futurists, God wasn't "mistaken".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But not every PROTESTANT has a direct link back to one of the REFORMERS.

True. The prophetic recognition of the Protestant Reformation was betrayed by a Protestant, Samuel Maitland.

He was an early godfather of today's modernist dispensational futurism.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,085
5,960
Nashville TN
✟634,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Adamina

Praise Jesus
Site Supporter
Feb 29, 2020
124
43
U S A
✟16,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Proof that heresy begets further heresy?
Is your argument for or against the Pope/Papacy being anti-christ and in Revelation?

Pope = Anti-christ theory
I came across an article today, talking about the well discussed theory of the Catholic Church/pope being the anti-christ.

Here was the reasons they gave:
---------------------------------------------------
The Bible says:
The Anti-christ has been here since the 1st Century (1John 2:18, 1John 4:3)
The Anti-christ will still be here when 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 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.

*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.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,777
3,419
Non-dispensationalist
✟359,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
They were well acquainted with John's epistles, and understood that the apostate papacy was the predominant antichrist of their era, but not the "arch villain of the end times".
What proof do you have of that statement?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BrotherD

Thus Saith The Lord
Mar 10, 2019
380
338
Tennessee
✟37,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Revelation 13 Bible Study from
"Daniel and the Revelation" by Uriah Smith

The sea is a symbol of “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.” Revelation 17:15. A Beast is the Bible symbol of an unrighteous nation, or power, representing sometimes the civil power alone, sometimes the ecclesiastical in connection with the civil. Whenever a beast is seen to come up out of the sea, it denotes that the power arises in a thickly populated territory; and if the winds are represented as blowing upon the sea, as in Daniel 7:2, 3, political commotion, civil strife, and revolution are indicated.

And here, as an introductory inquiry, we raise the question, Who our what is it that persecutes the true church? - It is a false or apostate church. What is it that is ever warring against true religion? - It is a false and counterfeit religion. Who ever heard of the civil power, merely, of any nation, persecuting the people of God? Governments may war against other governments, to avenge some wrong, real or imaginary, or to acquire territory and extend their power, as nations have often warred against the Jews; but governments do not persecute (mark the word - do not persecute) people on account of their religion, unless under the control of some opposite and hostile system of religion. But the powers introduced in this prophecy, - the dragon, the leopard beast, and the two-horned beast, - are all persecuting powers. They are actuated by rage and enmity against the people and the church of God. And this fact is of itself sufficiently conclusive evidence that in each of these powers the ecclesiastical or religious element is the controlling power.

Take the dragon: what does it symbolize? - The Roman empire, is the undeniable answer. But this is not enough. No one would be satisfied with this answer and no more. It must be more definite. We then add, The Roman empire in its pagan form, to which all must also agree. But just as soon as we say pagan, we introduce a religious element; for paganism is one of the hugest systems of counterfeit religion that Satan ever devised. The dragon, then, is so far an ecclesiastical power that the very characteristic by which it is distinguished is a false system of religion. And what made the dragon persecute the church of Christ? - It was because Christianity was prevailing against paganism, sweeping away its superstitions, overturning its idols, and dismantling its temples. The religious element of that power was touched, and persecution was the result.

We now come to the leopard beast of chapter 13. What does that symbolize? The answer still is, The Roman empire. But the dragon symbolized the Roman empire, and why does not the same symbol represent it still? - Ah! there has been a change in the religious character of the empire; and this beast symbolizes Rome in its professedly Christian form. And it is this change of religion, and this alone, which makes a change in the symbol necessary. This beast differs from the dragon only in that he presents a differentreligious aspect. Hence it would be altogether wrong to affirm that it denotes simply the Roman civil power.

To this beast the dragon gives his seat, his power, and great authority. By what power was pagan Rome succeeded? We all know that it was by Papal Rome. It matters not to our present purpose when or by what means this change was effected; the great fact is apparent and is acknowledged by all, that the next great phase of the Roman empire after its pagan form was its papal. It would not be correct, therefore, to say that pagan Rome gave its seat and power to a form of government merely civil, having no religious element whatever. No stretch of the imagination can conceive of such a transaction. But two phases of empire are here recognized; and in the prophecy, Rome is pagan until Rome is papal. The statement that the dragon gave to the leopard beast his seat and power, is further evidence that the dragon of Revelation 12:3 is not a symbol of Satan personally; for Satan has not abdicated in favor of any other malevolent being; and he has not given up his seat to any earthly power.

To show this more fully, we have but to draw a parallel between the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20, 24, 25, and this power. From this comparison it will appear that the little horn referred to and the leopard beast symbolize the same power; but the little horn is acknowledged on all hands to be a symbol of the papacy. There are six points of identity, as follows:-

1. The little horn was a blasphemous power. “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” Daniel 7:25. The leopard beast of Revelation 13:6 does the same. “He opened his mouth in blasphemy against God.”

2. The little horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. Daniel 7:21. This beast also (Revelation 13:7) makes war with the saints, and overcomes them.

3. The little horn had a mouth speaking great things. Daniel 7:8, 20. And of this beast we read, Revelation 13:5: “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.”

4. The little horn arose on the cessation of the pagan form of the Roman Empire. The beast of Revelation 13:2 arises at the same time; for the dragon, pagan Rome, gives him his power, his seat, and great authority.

5. Power was given to the little horn to continue for a time, times, and the dividing of time, or 1260 years. Daniel 7:25. To this beast also power was given for forty-two months, or 1260 years. Revelation 13:5.

6. At the end of that specified period, the dominion of the little horn was to be taken away. Daniel 7:26. At the end of the same period, the leopard beast was himself to be “led into captivity.” Revelation 13:10. Both these specifications were fulfilled in the captivity and exile of the pope, and the temporary overthrow of the papacy by France in 1798.

Here are points that prove identity; for when we have in prophecy two symbols, as in this instance, representing powers that come upon the stage of action at the same time, occupy the same territory, maintain the same character, do the same work, exist the same length of time, and meet the same fate, those symbols represent the same identical power.

Thus it is placed beyond controversy that it was none other than the papal head that was wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed. This wounding is the same as the going into captivity. Revelation 13-10. It was inflicted when the pope was taken prisoner by Berthier, the French general, and the papal government was for a time abolished, in 1798. Stripped of his power, both civil and ecclesiastical, the captive pope, Pius Vl, died in exile at Valence in France, Aug. 29, 1799. But the deadly wound was healed when the papacy was re- established, though with a diminution of its former power, by the election of a new pope, March 14, 1800. (See Bower’s History of the Popes, pp. 404-428; Croly on the Apocalypse, London edition, p. 251.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,777
3,419
Non-dispensationalist
✟359,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You will find no futurism (i.e. a futurized antichrist) in their writings. To a man, they recognized the antichrist in their midst.
I don't think at the time of the reformers there were the labels of futurists, historists, preterists.

What I am saying is that they were mistaken to think the person commonly called the Antichrist, beast, was the pope/papacy.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't think at the time of the reformers there were the labels of futurists, historists, preterists.

What I am saying is that they were mistaken to think the person commonly called the Antichrist, beast, was the pope/papacy.

The God who empowered their thinking was not mistaken.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God empowered Part of their thinking. But not the part on the pope/papacy being the Antichrist, beast.

The recognition of antichrist was a foundation doctrine of the Reformation, without which it would not have succeeded.

God doesn't empower partial thinking.
 
Upvote 0