*******
Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): “Luther … proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy … And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome.” Taken from J. H. Merle D’aubigne’s History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.
Based on prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.
John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt… I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.
John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract “that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church.” As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.
Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams 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 change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): “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 exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.” Taken from Philip Schaff’s, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.
Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): “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.” Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “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… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped…claiming the highest power, and highest honour…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Charles Spurgeon: “It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”
“Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.”
A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.
Why is it that today we are so eager to embrace Rome? Were these men wrong, or has the church of today lost sight of something? Or has the Catholic Church changed? Though my heart rebels at what these men taught, I do find it presumptuous to think that little ol’ me knows better than all of these giants of the faith.
Daar is inderdaad baie vorms van Antichris, soos die Bybel ook spreek in Johannes 2: (18), “Kinders, dit is die laaste uur. Julle het gehoor dat daar ‘n antichris kom; en daar is nou reeds baie antichriste. Daaruit weet ons dat dit die laaste uur is.” Die wyse in die Bybel om die antichris te herken, is duidelik, 1 Johannes 2: (22) “Wie is die leuenaar anders as hy wat nie wil erken dat Jesus werklik die Christus is nie? Hý is die antichris, hy wat nie die Vader en die Seun wil erken nie.” en 1 Johannes 4: (3, “)En elkeen wat dit nie van Jesus bely nie, het nie die Gees wat van God afkomstig is nie. Hy het die gees van die antichris, die gees van wie julle gehoor het dat hy kom en wat nou reeds in die wêreld i”, en .2 Johannes 1: (7) ” Daar het baie misleiers te voorskyn gekom in die wêreld. Hulle erken nie dat Jesus die Christus is wat mens geword het nie. Dit is wat ek met “die misleier”, “die antichris”, bedoel.”.
Sou mens kyk na die verskeie hoofstroom godsdienste buite dié “Christelike godsdiens” , ontken almal bg, soos deur Judaïsme, Islam, Boedisme, “New Age”, die groot variasies in Hinduïsm, Ateîsme, ensovoorts. Die groter gevaar is waar die Openbaring van Christus as enigste Weg, Waarheid, Lewe tot siele-redding, vermeng word met beïnvloeding – soms baie subtiel – van verskeie aard en in graad deur bogenoemde sfere, maar binne die kring van “Christelike Kerk”. Openbaring 1 tot 4 (ter voorbeeld) word nie naastenby na waarde geag, waar Christus NET met SY Kerk praat oor waar.mee hul besig is. En dít was 1950 jaar gelede! Hoeveel te meer in 2025? Die Ou Testament het só geweldige verwatering geword vanaf preekstoele, dat ‘n ánder Christus gepreek word as in Openbaring,. Die “Woord” waarvan Openbaring 19 spreek, is tog Christus Homself, soos geopenbaar regdeur die Bybel.
Dié Openbaring spruit uit GOD HOMSELF (Openbaring 1:1), en het Hy Sélf aan Christus gegee, die Leeu en Lam, Sy Seun. Watter kerke vandag 👁👁 Openbaring se Christus in hul geestesoog in die bediening by hul dominees, pastore, priesters en kerkrade en gemeentede en al hul “aksies”? Bitter .min. Bazaars en koek en tee en gesels en kuier, dié gedy ten hoogste, maar Christus Sélf is maar soos die baba se fopspeen in meesste gesprekke en handelinge.
Nie net die Pousdom het ‘n verwatering geword van Christus (‘n váls Christus wat vermeng word met hul eie afgode oor honderde jare), maar ook in baie ánder kerklike sfere. Die tragedie is, dat die NG Kerk het ook in “Antichris 🧠👣” begin stap.
Christus is nie Mickey Mouse of Superman of George Soros of Jacob Zuma nie. ‘N WARE herder, beskerm die skape @ wolwe, en gooi hul nie vir wolwe nie. Dít is ook wat die NG Kerk doen. Hul speel met 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 uit die Hemel uit, en maak van GOD HOMSELF een groot grap. Dink hul Hy lag sáám met hul?
Soms wonder ek of die sg. “Konserwatiewe Kerk” nie óók ‘n vorm – subtiel – van “antichris-gees” openbaar nie? As .mens Christus se Missionale Sending ignoreer (soos meesste kerklede wél doen en als abdikeer aan die leraar of evangelis of ánder persoon), of nie bid vir ánder vir genesing, of selfs (en veral) ook bose geeste uitdrywe nie (het hul nou mínder geword ná Jesus se tyd op aarde?), is dìé maar ook ‘n subtiele vorm van “Antichrisdenke”, wat spreek dat die Gees van GOD minderwaardig is in die christen se lewe en nie kán getuig van ‘n “Opstandingslewe-deur-Christus-se-Gees Lewe” nie? Of as ‘n christen wéét of vermoed van korrupsie, diefstal, wanvoorstellings, groot gelieg, ensomeer by hul werk of in die kerk of selfs in politiek of die staat, en maar saampraat, of stilbly, of ander pad kyk, dan 👣👣👣👣 mens hand-aan-hand sáám antichrisdenke. Selfs as jy lieg op jou SARS belastingvorm. Maar kerke weier om na “sélf” te kyk.
Dit is ook jammer van Charles Spurgeon en RC Sproul van Ligonier se gerokery. Só verslawing, was beslis nie Christus se Wil nie, net soos geweldige oorgewig, waar mense verslaaf is aan kos……of nie sonder slaappille of kalmeerpille of depressie pille kan klaarkom nie. Het voorgenoemde wérklik ‘n idee (of gehad) van Wie Christus wáárlik is (of was)? Nee. Maar hul meen hul kan die antichris baie akkuraat by en in ánder eien. Niks is seker só erg soos ” mede-teoloog-se-woorde-aanbidding” , vér meer as Christus se Openbaring deur God Homself nie. Selfs die “konserwatiewe🧠” in moderne tye, verkondig ‘n “fluffy Christus”, selfs verwyfd, of vrou-agtig. Christus was ‘n MAN, nie ‘n vrou, en met rede.