Who was the Antichrist according to the early Protestant Reformers?

[ViaCrucis]

Notice I said "a foundation doctrine".

The time and effort that the apostate papacy devoted in the counter-reformation to attempting to deflect, via Ribera and Alcazar, the Reformation doctrine of antichrist; reveals that it was indeed a foundation doctrine.

Virtually without exception, the writings of the Reformers include the recognition of the identity of antichrist as the apostate papacy.

The Reformers themselves obviously considered it to be a foundation doctrine.

There are a lot of things I'd describe as foundational to the Reformation. That the papacy is antichrist isn't one of them. It is, at best, a peripheral idea.

If one is interested in understanding what the heart and soul of the Reformation is about, read the Confessions contained in the Book of Concord. The most important of which is the Augsburg Confession; this was the confession and statement of faith which the evangelical reformers professed before Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg.

Do the Confessions admit that the powers of the 16th century papacy are antichrist? Yes, in the Smalcald Articles and On the Power and Primacy of the Pope this is made. But these are not among the chief articles of faith, nor foundational for the faith promoted by the Reformation in the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let us be quite clear, that for the evangelical reformers there were dangerous doctrines beginning to be promoted among "Protestants" which were seen as equally as dangerous. Luther famously, in reference to the followers of Ulrich Zwingli, declared "I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Radicals." Concerning the Pope Dr. Luther also declared that he would freely kiss the Pope's ring would he to admit the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith. The hill upon which the Reformation lives or dies is the doctrine of Justification, this and this only.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jgr]

There are a lot of things I'd describe as foundational to the Reformation. That the papacy is antichrist isn't one of them. It is, at best, a peripheral idea.

If one is interested in understanding what the heart and soul of the Reformation is about, read the Confessions contained in the Book of Concord. The most important of which is the Augsburg Confession; this was the confession and statement of faith which the evangelical reformers professed before Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg.

Do the Confessions admit that the powers of the 16th century papacy are antichrist? Yes, in the Smalcald Articles and On the Power and Primacy of the Pope this is made. But these are not among the chief articles of faith, nor foundational for the faith promoted by the Reformation in the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let us be quite clear, that for the evangelical reformers there were dangerous doctrines beginning to be promoted among "Protestants" which were seen as equally as dangerous. Luther famously, in reference to the followers of Ulrich Zwingli, declared "I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Radicals." Concerning the Pope Dr. Luther also declared that he would freely kiss the Pope's ring would he to admit the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith. The hill upon which the Reformation lives or dies is the doctrine of Justification, this and this only.

-CryptoLutheran

Simply because the doctrine was comparatively understated in the Augsburg confession does not dilute its significance or influence. It was unambiguously and powerfully articulated in the subsequent Westminster and Baptist Confessions. And it is found with the same unambiguity and power within the writings and declarations of virtually every Reformer who wrote and preached.

Identification of the apostate papacy as antichrist began as far back as the 10th century, and realization spread inexorably and continuously thereafter. A spiritual recognition that spiritually liberated millions, while costing their temporal lives, over ultimately more than seven centuries, was anything but a "peripheral idea".

You neglected to mention the counter-reformation, Francisco Ribera, and Luis Alcazar. For what primary reason and purpose were it and they commissioned?

At the 1516 Fifth Lateran Council, the papacy forbade any preaching about antichrist. Rome's foundations were being shaken.

The counter-reformation followed the Augsburg confession by some fifteen years. Something was continuing to shake Rome's foundations.

A foundation-shaking doctrine is a foundational doctrine.

The foundation-shaking and foundational Reformation doctrine of the apostate papal antichrist.

Let us be quite clear, that for the evangelical reformers there were dangerous doctrines beginning to be promoted among "Protestants" which were seen as equally as dangerous. Luther famously, in reference to the followers of Ulrich Zwingli, declared "I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Radicals." Concerning the Pope Dr. Luther also declared that he would freely kiss the Pope's ring would he to admit the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith. The hill upon which the Reformation lives or dies is the doctrine of Justification, this and this only.
-CryptoLutheran

Here are some of Luther's declarations regarding the apostate papal antichrist. Never did he renounce or retract them. Unquestionably they were another hill upon which he was ready to die, as did multitudes of his compatriots who fearlessly declared the same truths.

"...the papacy is in truth 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."

 

[Religiot]

The role of the Spiritual is to make the unclear clear to those who do not understand.
I am sorry that you do not understand the importance of the reformers so you can explain simple there role in the reformation or there importance.

Keep studying understanding will come.

I believe I may have misinterpreted your statement: please forgive me.

I presupposed that the relevance was apparent.

Do you know who the antichrist is? and if so, do you see any relevance to this post?

 

[Douggg]

Table of Contents

1. Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran):
2. John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian):
3. John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian):
4. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican):
5. Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America):
6. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647):
7. Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian):
8. John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist):
9. A Great Cloud of Witnesses:

The following quotations show what some of the most influential Protestant Reformers and early Christian leaders believed about Antichrist (“the little horn” (Daniel 7:8), “the beast” (Revelation 13:1), and “the man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Who was the Antichrist according to the early Protestant Reformers? -

What I want to see is the reformers' timeline of events chart for the 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

What I want to see is the reformers' timeline of events chart for the 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9.

It follows on the heals of the 69th week and ends in 34 ad. No gap in time. The last week of the seventy week prophecy is all about Jesus not the anti christ as you preach.

Why do you substitute the anti christ into a messianic prophecy?

You asked for a chart see Martin Luther's comments below

This is what it would have looked like if they had produced it




John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and Isaac Newton all connect the 70th week with the Messiah.

Luther on the seventy ‘weeks of years’ and the Roman Empire in Daniel nine
Thus, Martin Luther26 insists that in Daniel 9:24f, "the 62 'weeks' are 434 years which, together with the 49 years of 7 'weeks' --amount to 483 years. It is that many years, since the second of Dariu s." Then, in the middle of Daniel's seventieth 'week' - "and at the beginning of the 34th year of Christ's life, in the very same year (I say) Christ was put to death."

https://amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/PDF/References/RB/272 PDFs/Luther_on_Islam_and_the_Papacy.pdf

Question: Who is wrong Martian Luther or you as both of you cannot be right?
GOD Bless

 

[Davy]

They saw it as the fulfillment of the applicable prophecies.

It wasn't the fulfillment of the Bible prophecies for the end though, even as anyone who can read knows Christ's return is supposed to end the Antichrist's reign and persecution of His saints. I don't see the Roman Church killing Protestants who refuse to convert anymore. Those persecutions ended a long time ago. It's time to get up to date and quit living under the lens of the old Reformers.

 

[Douggg]

You asked for a chart see Martin Luther's comments below

This is what it would have looked like if they had produced it

Your chart you provided is not a timeline of events chart for the 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9.

You gave your timeline chart of the 490 years.

I want to see the reformers chart of just the timeline events for the 7 years 70th week of Daniel 9. Which contains saying peace and safety, the transgression of desolation of 2Thesslaonians2:4, the mortally wounding and coming back to life of the beast, the abomination of desolation placed in the temple, the 1260 days of the two witnesses, the time, times, half times, Satan being cast down to earth, the great tribulation, the 1335 days, the 1290 days, the armies assembling at Armageddon, the sign of the son of man in heaven, Jesus's return.

None of those things were on your chart, which you simply bracket the 7 years, 70th week .

Question: Who is wrong Martian Luther or you as both of you cannot be right?

Not only was Martin Luther wrong regarding the 7 year 70th, but so is anyone have the same view, of having the messiah cut off in the middle of the 70th week, at 70 and half weeks.
_______________________________________________

Do you know what is wrong with just reading reams and reams of commentary? It is fragmented.

A timeline chart of events forces the commentator to prove that his commentary is correct, because if it is wrong, the events will not fit together. Their chart will go past the seven years, or have conflicts all throughout, and will not be able to make their commentary work when put to the test.
_____________________________________________
The 70 weeks are determined upon Daniel's people and Jerusalem.

Not on Christianity.

 

[jgr]

It wasn't the fulfillment of the Bible prophecies for the end though, even as anyone who can read knows Christ's return is supposed to end the Antichrist's reign and persecution of His saints. I don't see the Roman Church killing Protestants who refuse to convert anymore. Those persecutions ended a long time ago. It's time to get up to date and quit living under the lens of the old Reformers.

It's time to recognize the historical accuracy of the Reformers' diagnoses, and quit embracing futurized fantasies originated by the historical apostate papacy.

 

[Davy]

It's time to recognize the historical accuracy of the Reformers' diagnoses, and quit embracing futurized fantasies originated by the historical apostate papacy.

God's written Word isn't fantasy, and that is what gives us the requirements of the coming Antichrist at the end of this world. The era of the Protestant Reformers is over, the one they 'thought' was the Antichrist didn't pan out. And the simple reason was, the papacy doesn't match what God's written Word reveals about the Antichrist.

It's most likely the false Jews of the "synagogue of Satan" that are the real movers and shakers behind today's theory of the pope being the Antichrist. The Jews that refused to convert to the Roman Church centuries ago feel they were persecuted by the Roman Church, and they want revenge, even at the expense of my deceived Christian brethren who don't know enough of God's Holy Writ to know better.

 

[jgr]

God's written Word isn't fantasy, and that is what gives us the requirements of the coming Antichrist at the end of this world. The era of the Protestant Reformers is over, the one they 'thought' was the Antichrist didn't pan out. And the simple reason was, the papacy doesn't match what God's written Word reveals about the Antichrist.

With God's empowerment, the Reformers thought clearly, and diagnosed accurately, the antichrist in their midst; and the Reformation was a success.

Everything panned out, even for uncomprehending deniers.

It's most likely the false Jews of the "synagogue of Satan" that are the real movers and shakers behind today's theory of the pope being the Antichrist. The Jews that refused to convert to the Roman Church centuries ago feel they were persecuted by the Roman Church, and they want revenge, even at the expense of my deceived Christian brethren who don't know enough of God's Holy Writ to know better.

Awaiting names, quotes, sources, and dates of Jews who are "the real movers and shakers behind today's theory of the pope being the Antichrist."

 

[Davy]

With God's empowerment, the Reformers thought clearly, and diagnosed accurately, the antichrist in their midst; and the Reformation was a success.

Everything panned out, even for uncomprehending deniers.



Awaiting names, quotes, sources, and dates of Jews who are "the real movers and shakers behind today's theory of the pope being the Antichrist."

Jesus called them the "tares" in Matthew 13. But that was written to His elect, and will thus only be understood by them.

 

[Albion]

Jesus called them the "tares" in Matthew 13. But that was written to His elect, and will thus only be understood by them.

If it's in Matthew, it wasn't written only to his elect (just as every reference to an elect is there for all readers to see).

 

[Davy]

If it's in Matthew, it wasn't written only to his elect (just as every reference to an elect is there for all readers to see).

Then who are the "tares"? Obviously, not everyone will understand that.

 

[Albion]

Then who are the "tares"? Obviously, not everyone will understand that.

Unless you are saying that there is a secret code at work, "wheat" and "tares" is pretty well understood by everybody. At least that's so following a simple explanation of the ordinary meaning of the word "tares."

But that wasn't the point of my comment. It was meant more to say that the nature of the Bible is divine revelation, a message to mankind of the information that God intends for all mankind. The idea that some parts of it are supposedly meant to be comprehended by only a few who have been let in on the meaning by Him is, I think, contrary to the idea of this kind of revelation.

 

[jgr]

Jesus called them the "tares" in Matthew 13. But that was written to His elect, and will thus only be understood by them.

So you think that uncomprehending deniers, aka modernist dispensational futurites, are the tares?

Hmmm...I never thought of it that way. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Davy]

Unless you are saying that there is a secret code at work, "wheat" and "tares" is pretty well understood by everybody. At least that's so following a simple explanation of the ordinary meaning of the word "tares."

But that wasn't the point of my comment. It was meant more to say that the nature of the Bible is divine revelation, a message to mankind of the information that God intends for all mankind. The idea that some parts of it are supposedly meant to be comprehended by only a few who have been let in on the meaning by Him is, I think, contrary to the idea of this kind of revelation.

Jesus answered His disciples question when they asked Him to explain the parable of the tares... Matthew 13:36-43. Maybe you'd care to explain His answer to them.

 

[Albion]

Jesus answered His disciples question when they asked Him to explain the parable of the tares... Matthew 13:36-43. Maybe you'd care to explain His answer to them.

Why? If Scripture already explains the meaning, what's the problem? Or are you saying that you don't understand Jesus' explanation?

 

[Davy]

Why? If Scripture already explains the meaning, what's the problem? Or are you saying that you don't understand Jesus' explanation?

I well understand it. But it was you that made the claim that it was given for everyone to understand. I'm interested in knowing just what your understanding of it is.