Reformers' interpretations of the AntiChrist

[Hobie]

The Reformers saw its rise, and we're persecuted just as scripture said, have apply what it has, and you see what this entity is.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but can they trace their line all the way back to the time of the emergence from the Roman Empire, hmm...

The Antichrist may even be Jewish, as Jesus did warn them that while they refuse him as messiah, they will accept another who will come to them as their messiah!

 

[Hobie]

The Antichrist may even be Jewish, as Jesus did warn them that while they refuse him as messiah, they will accept another who will come to them as their messiah!

Just take a look at who persecuted the believers during the Dark Ages, and its not hard to see who the Antichrist entity is. The Reformation churches were clear on this but now some have forgotten the past.

 

[utilyan]

The Protestant churches today and even some brethren are backing away from identifying the AntiChrist power, and yet the Reformers and even those before them saw clearly who the AntiChrist was. What is happening to the churches today, are they becoming blind and forgetful of the truth they once saw clearly. Here is a list I came across of Pre-Reformation and Reformers Interpretations:

Date Name Reference Interpretation

c. 1310 Dante Alighieri
Rev. 17 Harlot=Roman Church

c. 1331 Michael of Cesena
Rev. 17 Harlot/Antichrist=Roman Church, Pope

c. 1345 Johannes de Rupescissa
Antichrist, Rev. 17 Babylon, Rev. 17 Harlot=Pope/Roman church

c. 1350 Francesco Petrarch
Rev. 17 Harlot=Papal Court

c. 1367 John Milicz
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Man of Sin=Papacy

c. 1379 John Wycliffe
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn. Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot=Pope/Papacy

c. 1388 Matthias of Janow
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Man of Sin. Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Hierarchy/Papacy

c. 1390 John Purvey
Antichrist, Rev. 13 666, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

c. 1393 Walter Brute
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin=Papacy/Bishop of Rome/Papacy

c. 1412 John Huss
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

c. 1497 Girolamo Savonarola
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

Reformation Era Interpretations:

1522 Martin Luther
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1543 Philipp Melanchthon
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1545 Andreas Osiander
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1554 Nicolaus von Amsdorf
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1558 Johann Funck
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1560 Virgil Solis
Antichrist, Little Horn, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1570 Georg Nigrinus
Antichrist= Pope

1572 David Chytraeus
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin= Papacy

1530 Johann Oecolampadius
Antichrist, Little Horn=Papacy

1557 Heinrich Bullinger
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1550 William Tyndale
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1545 George Joys
Antichrist, Little Horn=Papacy

1554 Nicholas Ridley
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Rev. 17 Harlot. Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1553 Hugh Latimer
Antichrist=Papacy

1582 Thomas Cranmer
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1550 John Bale
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1562 John Jewel
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1587 John Foxe
Antichrist, Man of Sin=Bishop of Rome

1563 Anglican Formulas
Antichrist=Papacy

1547 John Knox
Antichrist, Little Horn=Church of Rome/Papacy

1593 John Napier
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 13 1st Beast, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast =Pope/Papacy/Latin Empire

1614 Thomas Brightman
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

1618 David Pareus
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Beast=Pope/Papacy

Sir Isaac Newton
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

John Wesley
Man of Sin. Rev. 17 Harlot. Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy also Antichrist

And they ask the question, "In view of the foregoing Reformation interpretations identifying Papacy as the Antichrist and Man of Sin, why do so many Evangelical Protestants today believe the Man of Sin and Antichrist are future individuals?"

How can the churches of the Reformation forget what they once held firm?

c.30-33 Jesus Christ
Matthew 10
24“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25“It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household! = Catholic Church

We'll take that badge. No one ever calls you in league with the Devil, We just call you brother's and sisters.

Since we are the bad guys in league with the Accuser, why not leave accusations to us? Let us handle the Evil doing, and you guys do the good?

 

[Yeshua1]

Just take a look at who persecuted the believers during the Dark Ages, and its not hard to see who the Antichrist entity is. The Reformation churches were clear on this but now some have forgotten the past.

You are taking the wrong views of Ellen White in regards to how to view Revelation and church history!

 

[MarysSon]

The Protestant churches today and even some brethren are backing away from identifying the AntiChrist power, and yet the Reformers and even those before them saw clearly who the AntiChrist was. What is happening to the churches today, are they becoming blind and forgetful of the truth they once saw clearly. Here is a list I came across of Pre-Reformation and Reformers Interpretations:

Date Name Reference Interpretation

c. 1310 Dante Alighieri
Rev. 17 Harlot=Roman Church

c. 1331 Michael of Cesena
Rev. 17 Harlot/Antichrist=Roman Church, Pope

c. 1345 Johannes de Rupescissa
Antichrist, Rev. 17 Babylon, Rev. 17 Harlot=Pope/Roman church

c. 1350 Francesco Petrarch
Rev. 17 Harlot=Papal Court

c. 1367 John Milicz
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Man of Sin=Papacy

c. 1379 John Wycliffe
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn. Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot=Pope/Papacy

c. 1388 Matthias of Janow
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Man of Sin. Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Hierarchy/Papacy

c. 1390 John Purvey
Antichrist, Rev. 13 666, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

c. 1393 Walter Brute
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin=Papacy/Bishop of Rome/Papacy

c. 1412 John Huss
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

c. 1497 Girolamo Savonarola
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

Reformation Era Interpretations:

1522 Martin Luther
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1543 Philipp Melanchthon
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1545 Andreas Osiander
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1554 Nicolaus von Amsdorf
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1558 Johann Funck
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1560 Virgil Solis
Antichrist, Little Horn, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1570 Georg Nigrinus
Antichrist= Pope

1572 David Chytraeus
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin= Papacy

1530 Johann Oecolampadius
Antichrist, Little Horn=Papacy

1557 Heinrich Bullinger
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1550 William Tyndale
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1545 George Joys
Antichrist, Little Horn=Papacy

1554 Nicholas Ridley
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Rev. 17 Harlot. Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1553 Hugh Latimer
Antichrist=Papacy

1582 Thomas Cranmer
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1550 John Bale
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1562 John Jewel
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1587 John Foxe
Antichrist, Man of Sin=Bishop of Rome

1563 Anglican Formulas
Antichrist=Papacy

1547 John Knox
Antichrist, Little Horn=Church of Rome/Papacy

1593 John Napier
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 13 1st Beast, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast =Pope/Papacy/Latin Empire

1614 Thomas Brightman
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

1618 David Pareus
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Beast=Pope/Papacy

Sir Isaac Newton
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

John Wesley
Man of Sin. Rev. 17 Harlot. Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy also Antichrist

And they ask the question, "In view of the foregoing Reformation interpretations identifying Papacy as the Antichrist and Man of Sin, why do so many Evangelical Protestants today believe the Man of Sin and Antichrist are future individuals?"

How can the churches of the Reformation forget what they once held firm?

I could ask the SAME question as to why Protestant churches of today have backed away from the Reformer's positions o several things, such as "Mary, Mother of God":

Martin Luther:
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 592)
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 572)
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 24, pg107)

John Calvin
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35)

John Wycliffe
[Sermon on Mary]

Ulrich Zwingli
[The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905]

Heinrich Bullinger, Ulrich Zwingli’s successor

Charles Drelincourt
French Reformed pastor, 1633

 

[Yeshua1]

I could ask the SAME question as to why Protestant churches of today have backed away from the Reformer's positions o several things, such as "Mary, Mother of God":

Martin Luther:
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 592)
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 7, pg 572)
(Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol. 24, pg107)

John Calvin
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35)

John Wycliffe
[Sermon on Mary]

Ulrich Zwingli
[The Works of Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905]

Heinrich Bullinger, Ulrich Zwingli’s successor

Charles Drelincourt
French Reformed pastor, 1633

Mary was the Mother of the humanity of Jesus, but not of his Deity!

 

[MarysSon]

Mary was the Mother of the humanity of Jesus, but not of his Deity!

Jesus unites to Himself TWO natures:
1) FULLY divine
2) FULLY Human
These two natures are indivisible.

Jesus is FULLY God.
Jesus if FULLY Human.
Mary gave birth to Jesus - NOT a "nature" - any more than YOUR mother gave birth to a "nature".

Sooooo, when did Protestants stray from the teachings of the Reformers??

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus unites to Himself TWO natures:
1) FULLY divine
2) FULLY Human
These two natures are indivisible.

Jesus is FULLY God.
Jesus if FULLY Human.
Mary gave birth to Jesus - NOT a "nature" - any more than YOUR mother gave birth to a "nature".

Sooooo, when did Protestants stray from the teachings of the Reformers??

She was not the Mother of God in the sense of birthing His deity into existence!

 

[utilyan]

She was not the Mother of God in the sense of birthing His deity into existence!

Your MOTHER is not your Creator. You guys are making mountains out of molehills by adding a pseudo science that one's mother is one's creator/superior.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your MOTHER is not your Creator. You guys are making mountains out of molehills by adding a pseudo science that one's mother is one's creator/superior.

I have no problem givinfy mary her due, but BIG problems with her as co matric, co redemptress and whatever other false theology RCC given to her!

 

[MarysSon]

I have no problem givinfy mary her due, but BIG problems with her as co matric, co redemptress and whatever other false theology RCC given to her!

Your MOTHER is not your Creator. You guys are making mountains out of molehills by adding a pseudo science that one's mother is one's creator/superior.

In the spirit of the thread - I was simply asking when Protestants strayed from the teachings of the Reformers on Mary.
Do you know - and why??

 

[Yeshua1]

In the spirit of the thread - I was simply asking when Protestants strayed from the teachings of the Reformers on Mary.
Do you know - and why??

The reformers never held mary in same regard as Rome did!

 

[MarysSon]

The reformers never held mary in same regard as Rome did!

WRONG.
I quoted several of the in post #26.

Ummmm, they ALSO believed in and taught about her Perpetual virgiity . . .


Reformers on Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Luther’s Works, editors. Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] & Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55]), 1955, vol. 22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Pelikan, ibid., vol. 22:214-215 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . (Pelikan, ibid.,vol. 45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (Pelikan, ibid., vol. 45:206, 212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )

John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, 215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, 107)

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting – not prayer – ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels – it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .’Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. (G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, 88-89, 395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522)

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’ (Thurian, ibid., 76)

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. (Thurian, ibid., 76 / same sermon)

Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .

‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’ (in Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined edition of volumes. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol. 2, 14-15)

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

 

[MarysSon]

Sooooo, when did THESE teachings from the Reformers get rejected by modern-day Protestants??

 

[Yeshua1]

Sooooo, when did THESE teachings from the Reformers get rejected by modern-day Protestants??

When they realized that was not what scriptures taught concerning Mary

 

[MarysSon]

When they realized that was not what scriptures taught concerning Mary

That's not what I asked.

I asked "WHEN" did you guys fall off the tracks from the teachings of your Protestant Fathers. If they were wrong about Mary - what makes you think they were right about anything else?
In other words - all it takes is ONE false teaching to be a FALSE teacher - and we are warned about false teachers in Matt. 7:15-20.

Verse 20 states explicitly:
A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.

Sooooo, how can you follow the teachings of men who you have later "proven" to be wrong??

 

[Yeshua1]

That's not what I asked.

I asked "WHEN" did you guys fall off the tracks from the teachings of your Protestant Fathers. If they were wrong about Mary - what makes you think they were right about anything else?
In other words - all it takes is ONE false teaching to be a FALSE teacher - and we are warned about false teachers in Matt. 7:15-20.

Verse 20 states explicitly:
A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.

Sooooo, how can you follow the teachings of men who you have later "proven" to be wrong??

We follow the scriptures only, as their view on Pauline Justification is the Gospel of Christ!

 

[MarysSon]

We follow the scriptures only, as their view on Pauline Justification is the Gospel of Christ!

AGAIN - you didn't address the issue.
I asked you - How can you follow the teachings of men who you have later "proven" to be wrong??

If they were wrong about Mary, they are FALSE teachers according to Matt. 7:15-20.

As for following the Scriptures only - the Bible NEVER tells us to do this.
Soooooo, where did this teaching come from??

Do you see a pattern here?
ONE false teaching begets another . . .

 

[Yeshua1]

AGAIN - you didn't address the issue.
I asked you - How can you follow the teachings of men who you have later "proven" to be wrong??

If they were wrong about Mary, they are FALSE teachers according to Matt. 7:15-20.

As for following the Scriptures only - the Bible NEVER tells us to do this.
Soooooo, where did this teaching come from??

Do you see a pattern here?
ONE false teaching begets another . . .

If member of the RCC, you would know!