1 John 4 (question)

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Does the papacy fit this description of antichrist?

Does Roman Catholicism "confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?"

I hold to the confessional understanding of antichrist and have a hard time reconciling this passage with the Historicist understanding of the papacy. Others, I believe Edwards is one, understand Islam to fit his description better and have referred to Islam as the antichrist in the East. It does make more sense...at least I think it does...

Thank you.

jm
 
Last edited:
Here is a tweet from Pope Francis: "When we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary: Give us the strength, Mary our Mother, to accept and embrace the Cross!" What's missing from this statement? Christ of course! I thought this was a good proof that not only Francis, but the office of Pope itself is an Anti-Christ. This is not to say that the Papacy is the only one, but I believe it to be an Anti-Christ.
 
Nuff said, thank you brother.

Does 1 John point to the papacy or a general spirit of antichrist?
 
In one place I read that the RCC teaches that Christ came in pre-fallen Adam flesh, rather than the same flesh (nature) as Abraham and David. Or rather, He was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature not by an immaculately conceived woman.
 
A little off topic, but … …

IS THERE A “THE” ANTICHRIST?

I think one of the most misleading terms used by students of prophecy is to say … ”The” antichrist.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1John 2:18

Note that the Greek does not state "the" antichrist shall come. The meaning could be the spirit of all those opposed to Christ, and not necessarily a single individual, as there are many antichrists as 1John tells us.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19.

Note that six times the reference is to ... "they", not one individual.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ: He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1John 2:22

Is the word "he" in this passage indicating one single individual? Is there only one that denies?

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that (spirit) of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1John 4:3.

Does the text say "the" antichrist should come, or is it "the spirit of antichrist" that should come?
The text tells us that "it" is already in the world. Clearly "it" is the spirit of those opposed to Christ and not a single individual.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2John 7

Do the above passages prove that there is one single individual that is "the" antichrist? I think not.

However,the Bible indicates the following as possibly being a single individual, or a singular kingdom.

"The" little horn.
"The man of sin.
"The son of perdition.

"The" rider on the first white horse.
"The" beast out of the earth.
"The" first beast.
"The" second beast.
"The" False Prophet.
"The" numbered beast.
"The" image of the beast.

Using the term "the antichrist" (as though there is only one) leads to confusion if we wish to seriously discuss (for example) the False Prophet, or the image of the beast etc..

Satan is satisfied that Christians continue to use that term, for as long as they do, the identity of those individual subjects in Revelation and elsewhere remain clouded and obscure, leading to confusion by using such an all encompassing, non specific identifying term.

Example: If a futurist were to say ... Obama is "the antichrist", the question still remains unclear as to what he is claiming.

Is the futurist saying he is the "little horn"?
Is the futurist saying he is one of the beasts?
Is the futurist saying he is the false prophet?
Is the futurist saying he is the numbered beast?
Is the futurist saying he is the image of the beast?

Consider the statement "He is antichrist". Compare that fuzzy, non identifying, all encompassing statement to the following:

A discussion takes place between two Christians that study Bible prophecy wherein one says:
"The papacy is the False Prophet."

That cuts to the quick. There is no confusion. Whether he is right or wrong in his claim, you KNOW exactly what he is claiming. Your mind is not cluttered up with all the other possible options.

I think there would be much less confusion between opposing posters if they would come straight out and say exactly what they mean and who they are referring to instead of the reader having to try to decipher some fuzzy statement or word such as “antichrist”.

I hope this makes some sense to those discussing prophecy.

ccc
 
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Does the papacy fit this description of antichrist?

Does Roman Catholicism "confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?"

I hold to the confessional understanding of antichrist and have a hard time reconciling this passage with the Historicist understanding of the papacy. Others, I believe Edwards is one, understand Islam to fit his description better and have referred to Islam as the antichrist in the East. It does make more sense...at least I think it does...

Thank you. jm

This should not be taken as The Scriptures sole source of Teaching on the Topic of The Antichrist
as no one Scripture source should be used to establish a Truth when there are many available,
it is in the whole Teaching of The Scriptures that a Doctrine ought to be be established where ever
possible, That The Confessions view is correct on The Papacy being "THE ANTICHRIST" can be
seen from this following work of H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism & The Reformation.

Romanism and the Reformation, by H. Grattan Guinness @ Historicism.com

http://www.champs-of-truth.com/reform/GUN_RORE.PDF

https://archive.org/details/romanismreformat00guinuoft
 
Thanks folks. I have read Guinness and I'm currently reading Two Babylons. I will continue to study.

Yours in the Lord,

j
 
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Does the papacy fit this description of antichrist?

Does Roman Catholicism "confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?"

I hold to the confessional understanding of antichrist and have a hard time reconciling this passage with the Historicist understanding of the papacy. Others, I believe Edwards is one, understand Islam to fit his description better and have referred to Islam as the antichrist in the East. It does make more sense...at least I think it does...

Thank you.

jm

Read Patrick Fairbairn's section on this in his "Interpretation of Prophecy"; if you have the time and are interested read the whole book. I think this work is online somewhere.

He basically says that Gnostic "Christianity", that denied that Christ had come in the flesh was an example of an antichrist, but not the Antichrist. The Antichrist was still to come in the form of the Papacy which doesn't deny the incarnation in as many words. Not all antichists do deny the incarnation in as many words, but the one that John was dealing with did.

Fairbairn's book is an excellent and "sane" introduction to many of these eschatalogical questions and to future prophecy in general in Scripture.



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Fairbairn wrote a sound postmil commentary on Ezekiel, among other great works.

He is one of the Old Free Church men , pre-1900, or pre-1893 if you like :) ,that has left a great scholarly legacy to Christ's cause and kingdom.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
I, for one, am intrigued about the fact that a 9 year member of the PB has made his 23rd post on this subject. I don't think I've ever seen you post before, Calvin, but at 81 years of age I think I'd be blessed by seeing more of your perspectives. May the Lord keep you and bless you, brother.
 
A friend explained it like this:

Rome denies that Christ came in human flesh due to their teaching on transubstantiation, Christ's human flesh is omnipresent in the Mass and His human flesh is repeatedly sacrificed. Does that make sense?
 
I am an historicist, and like most historicists, we don’t agree on all points, but agree in principle.

Jason, you have been reading Hislop’s Two Babylons … I have a question regarding Hislop’s comment. On page 271 he states:

“The reader, however, who has carefully considered the language that speaks of the name and number of the Apocalyptic beast, must have observed that, in the terms that describe that name and number, there is still an enigma that ought not to be overlooked. The words are these: “Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast – for it is the number of a man” (Rev xiii. 18).

Hislop asks, what means the saying, that the “number of the beast is the number of a man”? Does it merely mean that he has been called by a name that has been borne by some individual man before?

Hislop then states: “This is the sense in which the words have been generally understood. (Hislop continues) But surely this would be nothing very distinctive – nothing that might not equally apply to innumerable names.

********

I believe this is an important identifying point that Hislop may have missed. All popes are considered to be the image of, and called by a name that has been borne by another …ie “Peter”.

When a pope dies, the Vatican merely creates an image of the previous “Papal Peter”. This is accomplished by the required 2/3 vote … ie 66.6%

You will recall that when Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations, he asked the reporters: “Do you know who I am? My name is Peter”.

My question about the “name” is in regard to Hislop’s comment: “This is the sense in which the words have been generally understood…”

Although I agree with what Hislop states regarding the papacy, I am unaware of this understanding from the commentaries I have read. Do you have any sources that confirm Hislop’s claim as to … “have been generally understood” … as to a name that has been borne by some individual man before?

Thank you,
calvin
 
Hi Brother Calvin, I stalled on Hislop's work. His writing style tends to be overly verbose for a paragraph/page or choppy. There is no happy medium. He also jumps from a few facts to a conclusion without drawing a clear line of reasoning as to how he arrived at the conclusion. He seems to believe that similar means the same without offering proof.

I haven't given up on finishing it and after reading your post I'll pick it back up tonight and start from the beginning.

Thank you.

Yours in the Lord,

jason
 
Jason ... I am not so concerned about Hislop's personal comments but rather as to whether other writers/commentaries ALSO concluded that it "has been generally understood ... as to a name that has been borne by some individual before."

With your access to reference material, eventually, you may come across that claim by others during your research.
 
There is a strong case that the 666 - or 616 as it is in certain MSS - is a reference to Nero Caesar. John's original readers would then at least had had opportunity to work out the "gematria". Nero and the Roman Empire then become emblematic of the Beast, worldly, unsanctified, sometimes persecutory civil power. Later in time, the Beast seems to have been dealt a fatal wound by the Church when Constantine and the Empire are converted to Christianity, but the fatal wound heals, and such unsanctifird civil government is still with us, although Nero and pagan Rome have gone.

The Beast from the Earth/False Prophet, represents false ecclesiatical teachers and leaders, particularly the Papacy, that make common cause with with such civil and societal beastly worldliness, and even ape it, as the Papacy did with the now defunct Emperors and the Empire.

My pennysworth, remembering that Revelation is a dificult book in many places.

Under pressure from these two beastly characters, the Woman becomes the Harlot.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Jason ... I am not so concerned about Hislop's personal comments but rather as to whether other writers/commentaries ALSO concluded that it "has been generally understood ... as to a name that has been borne by some individual before."

With your access to reference material, eventually, you may come across that claim by others during your research.

Hey Brother, I think I understand what you are asking. I read page 271 a few times and found no further references but rest assured I will not forget you asked. As soon as I find something I'll send you a private message with details. From page 269-281 is just fascinating. I will continue to read and study.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hello Peairtach ... you noted that there is a strong case that 666/616 applies to Nero.

I agree that there is a strong case that Nero could be the first beast.
I personally believe that the Roman Empire (under Nero) to be the first beast and the "Holy Roman Empire" (under the papacy) to be the second beast of Revelation.

However, I find no scriptural support in Revelation to apply the "number" to the first beast ... can you?

Nor can I find a direct scriptural passage that the number applies to the second beast, but in that the image and mark is more closely associated with the second beast, I can only make the assumption that the number applies to the second beast rather than the first.

Going from memory, but I believe NRN QSR is a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek Neron Kaiser but, under the rules of Hebrew gematria (which preterism uses to arrive at 666 for Nero) a final "nun" numerical value is 700 by that single letter.

Students of prophecy seem to assume that the language to be used to "number the beast" is Hebrew or Greek ... but let us not forget that God does not state the language to be used to solve this mystery.
 
There is a strong case that the 666 - or 616 as it is in certain MSS - is a reference to Nero Caesar. John's original readers would then at least had had opportunity to work out the "gematria". Nero and the Roman Empire then become emblematic of the Beast, worldly, unsanctified, sometimes persecutory civil power. Later in time, the Beast seems to have been dealt a fatal wound by the Church when Constantine and the Empire are converted to Christianity, but the fatal wound heals, and such unsanctifird civil government is still with us, although Nero and pagan Rome have gone.

The Beast from the Earth/False Prophet, represents false ecclesiatical teachers and leaders, particularly the Papacy, that make common cause with with such civil and societal beastly worldliness, and even ape it, as the Papacy did with the now defunct Emperors and the Empire.

My pennysworth, remembering that Revelation is a dificult book in many places.

Under pressure from these two beastly characters, the Woman becomes the Harlot.

I don't know how that could be possible if the Apostle John wrote The Book of Revelation in 95AD.

A lot of Historicists hold that the Popes title in Latin Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar of The Son of God) adds
up to 666 which is the view I hold, its interesting to note that Anti-Christ means one in the stead of
Christ or to put it another way Vicar of Christ hence Vicar of The Son of God so the popes official title
is a dead giveaway, an open confession talk about hidden in plain sight.
http://www.pacinst.com/nslaw/chapter3/666.jpg

The Beast of Rev 13 has 7 heads which are 7 kings & 7 mountains, the 7 mountains refers to the city
of Rome which is famous for being built on 7 hills, the 7 kings represent 7 administrations of Roman
Government
so the papacy is the 8th but is of the 7 how could this be, we'll also as a mode or administration of
Government it is a resurrection of the despotic Roman Emperors & also as a MOUNTAIN as the Vatican
is built on Mons Vaticanus or Mount Vatican an old pagan temple of Cybele & Necropolis.
originally outside the original city but came within the city proper as it expanded.
One Evil: Vatican

so John having seen another Beast which made an image of the first beast which received
a wound by the sword & did live, the image of the first Beast(Roman Emperor) was restored
to life in the 2nd Beast (The Papacy) the Image as Calvin has well noted.
 
Last edited:
I take the view that Revelation was written before AD 70, making Nero very relevant to the first readers and hearers of the book as the first manifestation of the Beast, and also giving them opportunity to understand the puzzle. The Papacy created an image of the imperial and beastly power that had been exercised by Rome, and peculiarly exemplified by Nero, hence it is quite appropriate that the two should be identified by the same number.

But, as I said, Revelation is a difficult book in certain ways, so take people's thoughts on it with a pinch of salt.

Also beastly power has continued since the demise of Nero and the Roman Empire, as the book indicates, and has been seen in recent years e.g. in Communism, Nazism and the godless Western democracies. Also antichristian ecclesiastical false prophets setting up antichrists in Christ's visible Church isn't limited to the Papacy, but is too notorious to mention in the "Protestant communion",and these are sometimes more pertinent forms of antichrist for those of us who do not live in Romanist countries, or even for some Protestants that do live in Romanist countries.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
I take the view that Revelation was written before AD 70, making Nero very relevant as the first manifestation of the Beast. The Papacy created an image of the imperial and beastly power that had been exercised by Rome, and peculiarly exemplified by Nero, hence it is quite appropriate that the two should be identified by the same number.

But, as I said, Revelation is a difficult book, so take people's thoughts in it with a pinch of salt. Also beastly power has continued since the demise of Nero and the Roman Empire, as the book indicates, and has been seen e.g. in Communism, Nazism and the godless Western democracies. Also antichristian ecclesiastical false prophets setting up antichrists in Christ's visible Church isn't limited to the Papacy, but is too notorious to mention in the "Protestant communion".
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Do you think it is safe to say that these interpretations regarding the beast and his number to be primarily for the first century church while the secondary application would apply to the modern church? To me it would seem so since they were the recipients of the Revelation letter. There is so much unhealthy speculation in the modern church regarding this matter that I wonder if the point is missed—the beast takes such and such a form, but don't worry, the gates of hell will not prevail. Revelation seems to be a letter primarily written for the comfort of the church that experiences persecution in its most ugly forms. The enemy must be very happy that people have turned it into a tool for fault-finding and endless speculations (Who does this description represent? What do these signs really mean? How can we discern the time that Jesus will actually return and how can we hone our predictions?)
 
Dispensationalism's - since 1830 -been the biggest culprit at "muddying the waters". Dispensationalism is an erroneous imterpretative grid that is imposed on Scripture.

You're always going to get some degree of disagreement, since if the Lord wanted us to "chart it" I.e. chart future history, He wouldn't have given it in symbolical form, which is open to some degree of legitimate diversity of interpretation.

I must say I recently re-read Charles Hodge's section in his Systematic Theology on eschatology before Christ's Second Advent. Very sane and very sound.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Dispensationalism's - since 1830 -been the biggest culprit at "muddying the waters". Dispensationalism is an erroneous imterpretative grid that is imposed on Scripture.

You're always going to get some degree of disagreement, since if the Lord wanted us to "chart it" I.e. chart future history, He wouldn't have given it in symbolical form, which is open to some degree of legitimate diversity of interpretation.

I must say I recently re-read Charles Hodge's section in his Systematic Theology on eschatology before Christ's Second Advent. Very sane and very sound.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

What is Hodge's eschatological conviction? (e.g. Amillinial, Preterist, whatever...)
 
He was postmil with a bit of historicism shading into idealism, from what I've seen in his Systematic Theology, which is online.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
I never heard of 616 till I came to this forum. So we don't know if its 616 or 666? Never heard of occultists or others into devil worship use 616, but I always hear of 666. Unbelievably the other day I saw an add for Jim Beam bourbon in a can, called Devils cut, the alcohol content was 6.66%. Odd that 616 is quoted as being the possible number but never used. I fully believe its 666.
 
I never heard of 616 till I came to this forum. So we don't know if its 616 or 666? Never heard of occultists or others into devil worship use 616, but I always hear of 666. Unbelievably the other day I saw an add for Jim Beam bourbon in a can, called Devils cut, the alcohol content was 6.66%. Odd that 616 is quoted as being the possible number but never used. I fully believe its 666.

We know it's 666, but these few MSS with 616 point in a confirmatory way to Nero Caesar being the name hidden behind the number.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
A repeat question … for any and all.

Can you find any scriptural support in Revelation that clearly notes that the “number” of the beast applies to … the first beast of Rev 13:1?
I cannot.

Can you find any scriptural support in Revelation that clearly notes that the “number” of the beast applies to … the second beast of Rev 13:11?
I cannot.

As I noted earlier, I believe that the number applies to the second beast (or False Prophet) because of it being closely aligned with the image and mark, but that is an assumption on my part, and because of other evidence I have found regarding the image and the wonder working miracles of the second beast.

How learned scholars can be so dogmatic that it applies to the (fill in the blank) is beyond my understanding.

Perhaps someone here has a scriptural answer from Revelation for their claim.

Because a name was found to sum at 666 is not proof positive that scripture agrees with them.

Nor does scripture agree with those who claim that the numbering of the beast is to be solved by using the language of Hebrew Greek or Latin, for God does not state the language to be used. Rev 13:18.

Personally, I believe the reason we are not told, is because that specific language was not in existence in the time of John of Patmos, but is to be a language that is common to the world during these last days.

PS ... in case you were wondering, I am not a futurist.
 
Calvin Cormier said:
Can you find any scriptural support in Revelation that clearly notes that the “number” of the beast applies to … the first beast of Rev 13:1?
Revelation 15:4 seems to indicate it belongs to that first beast? Because who the image is of, is the one the number belongs to, and we know from Revelation 13 that the image is of the first beast.

"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."

Revelation 16:2 and 20:4 are similar.


Revelation 19:20 is also similar but provides another reason to believe the mark is of the first beast?

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Because we see here that the mark is "of the beast" not of the false prophet. I'm not aware of any who deny that the false prophet is the second beast of Revelation 13 (though I can't pretend to be an expert on the matter), but such could be seen to be the case because the false prophet described here is the one who wrought miracles before the beast and deceived those that had the mark of the beast and worshipped the beast's image, which is precisely what the second beast of Revelation 13 does in relation to the first beast.


Further confirmation that the mark belongs to the first beast might come from a theological reflection? That the second beast of Revelation 13 is always pointing to the first beast, not to himself. I call this a theological reflection because this role is what some have referred to as being part of an "unholy trinity" that we are presented with in Revelation 13.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Afterthought for your response regarding the first beast as being the "numbered" one.

The reason I asked was that historicism often relates the papacy as being the false prophet (second beast) and offers some numerical evidence that the number applies to it. However, your comments do seem to fit the preterist understanding of the first beast being the numbered one.

Again, thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top