Adult Sunday School - Statements concerning the Pontiff of Rome

Let's pray and start the study of God's Word. Father, we come before you thankful, Lord, for your goodness. We pray,

God, that you would sovereignly point this time as holy and sacred unto yourself and for your sake of your people.

Father, as we conclude the study of Roman Catholicism, we pray, God, that we would not develop a haughty spirit, but,

Lord, a spirit of humility, a spirit of gentleness as we sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts, always ready to give a defense for the hope that lies within us with gentleness and with respect.

And, Lord, we thank you that, again, you've given us this time consecrated and sacred unto you so that we may now give our hearts and our attention to thy

Word and to the teaching therein. We pray, God, that you would be magnified and glorified as it is appointed for the

Lord Jesus Christ to return and in his return to destroy the man of lawlessness and of sin. We pray,

God, that you would continue to lift up your people for the sake of your own glory. In Jesus' name, amen.

All right. Make sure to give this guy an insert.

There you go. So we're doing a kind of a… promise you guys we're going to conclude the study of…

Mabel, did you get a paper? Would you like one? Yeah, I've got…

I've got an extra two one. This one's a two -pager. I always make more.

All right. Well, I promised you a controversial subject today, and it really shouldn't be that controversial.

What I'm actually bringing to you is the historic Protestant view of the Antichrist. It's not something that is outside of the orthodoxy of Protestantism.

In fact, it accords with the very statement of faith of our church regarding our adoption of the

Second London Baptist Confession. Therein where it says, and on the back page, you'll see in statements concerning the pontiff on the third catechism line of the 169 chapter 26 and verse 4, it says this concerning the

Lord Jesus, the church, and the Antichrist. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church by the

Father's appointment. All authority is conferred on him in a supreme and sovereign manner to call, institute, order, and govern the church.

The Pope of Rome of Roman Catholicism cannot in any sense be head of the church.

Rather, he is the Antichrist, a man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called

God. The Lord will destroy him with the brightness of his coming.

Now, this is again from the Second London Baptist Confession. Some other statements of faith concerning the pontiff of Rome, you'll find in the

Lutheran Book of Concord states this, the Pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ.

Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself and as our Lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostles, the

Pope or Antichrist to govern us as our head or Lord. The Westminster Catechism and Confession of Faith says this, there was no other head of the church but the

Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof, but it is the

Antichrist, that man of sin and that son of perdition that exalted himself in the church against Christ and all that is called

God. So again, what we're presenting to you isn't outside of orthodoxy.

It isn't outside of the norm of Protestantism. This is actually the original concept of the

Antichrist within Protestantism and we are all Protestants. So the question lies then, what's changed?

Because this is no longer the popular view. This is now kind of the outlier view, isn't it?

When you hear most people talk about the Antichrist, what do you hear?

Who do you hear? Yeah, so you hear a lot of conspiratorial ideas concerning the

Antichrist. For instance, you'll get the idea that, so back in the 70s, you may have heard, if you're from that time frame,

I'm not, but I'm a history buff. Harry Kissinger, yeah,

Henry Kissinger, he's the Antichrist. He's Jewish and he's got, you order his name in the right way and it gives you the numeric value of 666.

Then in the 80s, it was Ronald Wilson Reagan. You take each letter and you got 666.

All right, man, you're onto something. And in my time, of course, when our first black president was elected, it was

Barack Obama is the Antichrist now. And it really is a man -centric,

American -centric idea to think that the Antichrist is going to hail from the

United States. There is no biblical evidence for that whatsoever. And let me actually give you some definitions.

The term Antichrist is very popular, and unfortunately so.

I'm even using it in this colloquial sense throughout this teaching.

But the Antichrist is kind of something that is overworked, overemphasized, and overhyped.

The Antichrist is that word appears, I think, twice in the Bible. And the word anti just means opposed.

So one who is opposed to Christ. When I was younger, I used to watch a lot of the History Channel, and there was always something special in the

Antichrist. And very sensational and very dramatic. And it's going to be this slick -talking politician.

It's going to be all these things. And when it really comes down to the Antichrist, the

Scripture says there are many Antichrists. Anyone who opposes

Christ or teaches a false doctrine concerning Christ is technically an Antichrist.

Now, there is, according to Scripture, and according to the very verses that I'm quoting from 1

John 2, John says, you've heard that the Antichrist is coming. And I say to you, many

Antichrists have already come into the world. But there is still this idea of the, the

Antichrist. So what do we do with this? And what does the Bible teach concerning this subject? I want to take you through some, primarily two places in the

Bible that speak heavily on this concept of the

Antichrist. And it's going to be found in the prophetic book of Daniel. So I want you to turn to Daniel chapter 7. And we're going to see what are the hallmarks of the

Antichrist. What does the Bible say about the man of lawlessness or the little horn? He goes by many names in Scripture.

And he's also confused with many other titles. And we'll go into that a little bit later. But in the book of Daniel in chapter 7, what you have is a very fascinating prophecy concerning four kingdoms represented by four beasts.

In the Bible, kingdoms are always associated with beasts. And so when you think about the nature of government, government is never showed to us or demonstrated to us in a positive light.

It's always in a negative connotation. Nations are always beasts. And what do beasts do? They trample, they eat, they kill, they claw.

They do all these evil things. And the way the Bible points to governments, they point to government as a necessary evil in the world.

That's why even the apostle Paul in Romans 13 says that government's role is to be a sword. It's not there to play patiquette.

It is there to use the sword, to draw the sword, to spill blood and to try to contain to some degree the human nature.

And because the human nature is wicked and because humanity sins, oftentimes governments have a heavy foot, the heavy boot of oppression from government.

Right on time there, brother. We're just getting there. And so we're in Daniel chapter 7.

We're just opening. We're just looking at the beginning of this. And again, nations are represented by beasts in Scriptures.

So let's notice what it says here, starting in verse 2. Daniel declared, I saw in my vision by night and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea.

Anyone know what the sea, what is represented by the sea in Scripture? Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Revelation use this concept of the sea.

In fact, in Revelation chapter 13, you see the beast coming out of the sea. Anyone know what the sea represents in the

Bible? Usually means two things. What's that?

Very good. So it represents two primary things. If you remember back in Genesis, in the creation narrative, it says that the

Spirit was hovering over the surface of the deep. It's the sea. And what that sea represents is untamed kind of chaos, right?

And that's why in the Bible, in Job, for instance, the sea is the place of a leviathan.

You don't go there. Only God can tame a leviathan. You know, it's the place of uncertainty. It's the place of chaos. It also represents in the

Bible the nations, right? So from amongst them, and primarily the peoples of the nations, it represents the chaotic peoples of the nations, right?

So out of the chaos of the nations rise these beasts, rise these creatures, okay?

And it says in verse 3, This is the one we want to focus on.

were before it, and it had ten horns. Let's stop there for a second. You have all these descriptions of these beasts.

These beasts represent nations. Anyone know what the first beast represents? The first was like a lion, had eagle's wings.

Represents Babylon, okay? Then the next one represents the

Middle Persian Empire. And the third beast represents Greece. And then, which was, you know,

Daniel chapter 8 talks greatly about Greece, this power that was to come, had not yet come. Remember, Daniel was writing this in the post -Babylonian exile, right through the destruction of the temple by the

Babylonians. So they're in exile in Babylon. So this is before the fall of Babylon. This is before the rise of the

Middle Persian Empire. This is before the rise of Alexander the Great, of which Daniel prophesies brilliantly and specifically.

And this is obviously before Rome. So this is a Bible prophecy that you can look and see its fulfillment in real time in history.

The fourth beast represents what kingdom? What is the next kingdom in succession after the

Greeks? Rome. Now, Rome, he says, this beast is different.

Notice the descriptions. The other beasts look fearsome, like you don't want a mess of a bear, you don't want a mess of a leopard, you don't want a mess of a lion.

But this one is different. This one goes beyond description. And you can't liken it to any particular beast in the animal kingdom.

And so if you look at some older, you know, artist's rendering of this idea, some people put it like a

T -Rex or like a dinosaur of some sort, some fearful, terrible creature. And so that's the way that they picture it.

And notice what it goes on to say. So in verse seven again. After this, I saw in the night visions, behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong, had a great iron teeth, a devoured and broken pieces, and a stantle was left with its feet.

It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. Now, this beast has ten horns, ten particular horns.

So that's going to be important. Let's keep that in mind. Verse eight says, I considered the horns and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one before which three of the first ones were plucked up by the roots.

And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man and mouth speaking great things.

So if you're following the notes this morning, in Daniel's vision, the fourth beast is described as having how many horns?

Ten horns. Of one in particular having human features.

And depending on the translation, it spoke blasphemy. So here it says great things.

NIV would say blasphemy. Other places here in the scripture also use the term blasphemy in regard to the speech of this little horn.

It's okay. So you have this beast, this creature has ten horns. Little horn comes out of it, starts speaking boastful, terrible things.

So let's break that down a little bit more. Okay. Again, the first line should read in Daniel's vision, the fourth beast is described as having ten horns with one having human features and spoke blasphemy.

Now, let's get the interpretation of Daniel's vision here in verse 17 of Daniel seven, which is one of the great things.

If you're ever confused about something in prophecy, it's usually explained in the next following verses, right?

And so some people focus on an ambiguous verse and the Lord is usually gracious enough to provide the interpretation of the text or of the prophecy to his servants.

And it says again in Daniel chapter seven, verse 17, these four great beasts are four kings who shall rise out of the earth.

But the saints of the most high shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.

And it says in verse 19, I desire to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze and which devoured and broken pieces, the stamped and stomped what was left of its feet.

I'm in Daniel chapter seven, verse 20 now. And it says in about the 10 horns there were on its head and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell and the horn had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things that seemed greater than its companions.

And as I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them until the ancient days came and judgment was given for the saints of the most high and a time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.

And so let's stop there for a moment. Actually, let's go into verse 25.

And it says, thus he said, as for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth and trample it down, break it to pieces.

As for the 10 horns out of this kingdom, 10 kings shall arise and another shall arise after them.

He shall be different from the former ones and he shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the most high and shall wear out the saints of the most high and shall think to change the times and law and they shall be given into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

This is what the Bible…this is the little horn. Again, most commentators agree this is likely, you know, the man of lawlessness, the

Antichrist. No one, no scholar that I'm aware of disagrees with that equation, with equating the

Antichrist, man of lawlessness, and the little horn in particular. So most scholars are pretty universal in accepting that connection.

But I want you to notice that the fourth beast is indeed the Roman Empire. I want you to write that in notes.

The fourth beast is the Roman Empire. And what's interesting about the little horn that arises out of the

Roman Empire is that it will trample…it arises from it and it tramples on the saints for a time.

It tramples on the saints. So here we're beginning to form a picture of what the

Antichrist, man of lawlessness, looks like, what his operations are, what his function is, what his purpose is.

But you also understand where his origin is. The fourth beast is the Roman Empire, which means that the little horn, the

Antichrist, comes from the Roman Empire. Doesn't come from Turkey, doesn't come from Russia, doesn't come from Egypt, doesn't come from Israel, doesn't come from anywhere else other than where?

Rome. So the Antichrist has to be from the ancient Roman Empire.

There's just no other way. It arises from the beast, and the beast is

Rome, right? Pretty clear, pretty unanimous. There is no other mechanism in Scripture that gives us to equate this with anything or anyone else.

So it has to be from the Roman Empire. I'll let these guys catch up here.

So we're all tracking of that. Any questions so far? So again, the fourth beast is the

Roman Empire, and the little horn rises from it and tramples on the saints for a time, okay?

Now, there's some more specifics as to this little horn and what he does and what his operations are. And the little horn is marked particularly by his opposition to God and to his people.

But notice what Daniel 7 .25 says concerning the operation of the little horn, which is the

Antichrist. Some translation says wage war against the saints.

Notice what he does. Notice what the little horn, what the Antichrist does. He tries to change time and laws.

Some translation says instead of time, seasons, seasons, time, and laws.

By any chance anyone knows what calendar we use today, what it's called? The Gregorian calendar named after who?

Pope Gregory, who changed the calendar of which the whole

Western world uses and abides by today, which is interestingly enough, a solar calendar.

The biblical calendar is not a solar calendar. Do you know that? So, what the ancient Hebrews used was not…the calendar that Jehovah gave his people was not a solar calendar, it was a lunar calendar, which is why they go by new moons.

But we use a solar calendar, which is based upon the Roman Empire, and in particular

Pope Gregory, who in the 1400s had us adopt this universal standard of time that we still use today.

So, and anyone in history, who in history has had the power to change times and calendars and seasons?

And it's the Pope. I've never understood why the New Year is in the dead of winter. Have you ever thought about that?

Why is it on January 1st? January, you know, January, pagan

God, you know, August, Augustine, you know, we're using a

Roman calendar. Isn't it interesting? It's very fascinating.

You know, so much so that the Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 1930s, because they understood this and they, you know, they don't celebrate anything because they're superstitious that everything is pagan, they even attempted to make their own calendar and that didn't really work out too well, so they dropped that.

But they were so, you know, against paganism in all its forms that they didn't even want to use the secular calendar because it was based off pagan

Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church. So, pretty interesting.

So, again, the little horn has the power, has the authority to change times and laws, and laws.

Once you turn to the back of your page, there's the last quote there from the Catholic book, My Catholic Faith, which is based upon a

Catholic catechism. On page 251, it says this, The pope can make and unmake laws for the entire church.

His authority is supreme and unquestioned. Every bishop, every priest, every member of the church is subject to him.

How many people are subject to the pontiff of Rome? How many people?

1 .2 billion people. That's bigger than any nation on earth.

1 .2 billion people are subject to the headship of the pontiff of Rome, and his authority is absolute in being able to change laws, times, and seasons for 1 .2

billion adherents of the Roman Catholic Church. Think of the magnitude of this, how big this is.

Notice, again, what the little horn does. And what's interesting is that it's little. Out of this beast comes this little horn.

This beast is not small. He's large. He's, he's fierce, fearful. He is, he is fearsome.

He is powerful. He tramples on all the nations. This is the Roman Empire. Out of the Roman Empire comes this little horn.

Small in stature, but speaks great things, which is pointing to a small nation state, but a powerful figure working therein.

Okay, so very, very interesting things here that are at play. So again, the little horn is marked by his opposition to God and his people.

He has the authority to change times and laws. And so we have to keep asking ourselves, who in history fits the bill?

Who is fitting this narrative? Who is fitting this description of the little horn, or in particular, the man of lawlessness?

And so let's actually look a little bit deeper into what the New Testament writes about in 2

Thessalonians chapter 2, concerning this man of lawlessness. Yes, 2

Thessalonians, the second chapter.

Now it says, Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being joined together with Him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed either by a spirit or a spoken word or a letter seeming to be from us to the effect that the day of the

Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion or the word apostasy comes first.

And the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so -called

God or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be

God. So here you have a description of what's called the man of lawlessness, the man of sin.

And in particular, what he will do and what precedes him, which is what?

What precedes the revealing of the man of lawlessness or what coincides with it? It's the what?

It's the rebellion. It's the apostasy, okay? And that's a really strong indicator of who the antichrist is, is because he coincides or comes out of this apostasy, out of this moving away from Christian orthodoxy.

So what's interesting here is that in Daniel chapter seven, you have what seems to be a political figure, okay?

Because he's obviously political because he's coming out of Rome, but he's doing religious things.

He's speaking boastful words and exalting himself against who?

The most high God. Here, he's doing the exact same thing. He opposes and exalts himself against every so -called

God or object of worship, okay? So he seems to be a political figure, but he's also a religious figure.

He's doing political things. He's got a nation state. He's a little whore. He's part of the Roman Empire, yet he's also speaking religious things, okay?

And he's opposing, and he's part of this apostate rebellion of Christianity.

So most likely not an Islamic figure.

Some evangelicals like to think that maybe this is an Islamic figure, and I see why the appeal would be because Islam is obviously, seemingly a great threat to Western civilization today, but I would not, actually,

I think Islam has a place in scripture, but I don't think it's a little whore nor the man of lawlessness, nor should we expect the man of lawlessness to be

Muslim. Instead, he seems to be coming out of the

Christian church. Why? Because again, it says he is the sign of rebellion that's coming first, apostasy.

Where does apostasy come from? It comes from within. It comes from within the church, not from outside.

It comes from within the church, okay? And that's what we have to look for. We have to look at these markers.

This is clearly a political, but also a religious figure that comes out of historic Christianity, out of historic

Christendom, but then opposes and exalts himself against every so -called God or object of worship.

So he takes a seat in the temple of God, okay? A lot of dispensationalists, premillennialists would argue that this temple of God is a third temple built in Jerusalem that we should be expecting, and I used to hold to that view when

I was a historic premillennialist and a dispensationalist, but I don't hold to that view any longer because the evidence is overwhelming of the

New Testament that the temple of God is who? The body of Christ.

The church is always referred to as the temple of God. Think about it this way as well.

Jesus says, Jesus does not say that the temple's gonna be rebuilt. In fact, in the Olivet Discourse, he prophesies its destruction, and its destruction is final.

He says not one stone will be left on top of another. He doesn't give any opportunity for a third temple to be built, nor is there any evidence of that in Scripture.

So what also needs to be considered in regard to a third temple is the implications. When you read the book of Hebrews, the writer of Hebrews is very concerned with this idea because as this was being written, the temple was still standing, okay?

So we know that Hebrews has an, I would say the whole of the New Testament has an authorship before the year 70, before the destruction of the temple.

And I say that because of the internal evidence, internal witness of Scripture itself. And so when you look at the internal evidence of Scripture, you see that, okay, when

Hebrews is being written, the temple's still standing. How do we know this? Because the writer of Hebrews, most likely

Paul, says that the new covenant, that the old covenant is obsolete and is fading away.

And he says along with his rituals, along with all of its services, which means that as it was being written, those services, those temple rituals are still being done.

But he says they're fading away. They're being done away. One day they're gonna be gone completely. Had not yet happened in the time of Paul because the destruction of the temple didn't happen until the year 70.

And what Paul's concerned with in Hebrews is this idea of this clashing idea between the ritualistic nature of temple worship with true worship within the

Christian church. And he makes it very clear that the sacrificial system was obsolete, was obsolete now, in that time, in that day, as Paul was writing.

And that in fact, the blood of goats, of bulls, calves could not sanctify, but only the blood of Christ can sanctify it to the other most.

It's his argument. And so the sacrificial system of temple worship, even within the generation of the apostles, was already obsolete and in fact apostate.

Because Christ had given us the final propitiation of our sins, that ransom sacrifice.

So if a temple was to be rebuilt today, would it be God's temple? If the Jews built a third temple today, would that be

God's temple? No, it wouldn't be. You think Yahweh, Jehovah, would look upon blood sacrifices and be pleased of that?

When he has sacrificed his own son? When the blood of Jesus speaks a better word than the blood of goats and bulls?

It would be an affront to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To even consider a third

Jewish temple to be something that is ordained by God as true worship or a true temple.

Which is why the New Testament writers are very crystal clear. The temple now is the church.

The saints, Jew, Gentile, we make up this new living temple. Yes. Don't go back.

That's right. Don't go back. That's right. Absolutely, 100%. And so when

I look at 2 Thessalonians 2, I'd be hard -pressed to be convinced that this is a literal third

Jewish temple. The Jews today are apostate. The Jews today are not worshiping the true

God. These are not people who, even if they were to build a temple, it would not be

Yahweh's temple. They don't even say his name. You know what they say instead? They use the term Hashem when they talk about the

Lord God of Israel. You know what the word Hashem means in Hebrew? The name. They don't even say

Yahweh. They barely even say Adonai, which means Lord. They use the term Hashem. You know, they're not worshiping the

God of the Bible. They're not worshiping Yahweh. And they certainly have not accepted the

Messiah, the Mashiach, Jesus Christ. And so any third temple that would even be built by them wouldn't be

God's true temple. And to put insult to injury, not to go too deep into this, but it is physically impossible for them to build a third temple, not for the reasons you may think.

You've all heard of the Temple Mount, correct? What stands on top of the Temple Mount? The Muslim Dome of the

Rock, the mosque. I think the, what was it called? The Al -Masjid mosque or something like that.

And this is a holy site for the Jewish, I mean, for the Muslim people. But that's not the reason I'm saying it's an impossibility, okay?

The reason why I'm saying it's an impossibility physically is because what is called the Temple Mount today is not the

Temple Mount. You might be wondering, well, what do you mean by that? I mean, exactly what

I said is not the Temple Mount. How do I know this? When you look at the historical records, and I have the books, and so I can give you the receipts.

The most famous historian of the first century was a man by the name of Josephus.

He was a Jewish historian writing for the Romans. And he describes the carnage of the destruction of the temple in the year 70.

And he actually goes back after the destruction of the temple. And you know what he reports? He stands on a hill, same hill that you can go to today, okay?

So it's still there. You go to this hill in which he stood, and he says, there was not even a sign, you could not even see the imprint of the foundation of the temple, of where the

Temple Mount stood. He says, the only thing that was left over from the temple complex was the ruins of Fort Antonio, okay?

Now, that means, and when you go today to that same location that Josephus stood from, and you look at the direction that he said to look from, you know what you see?

What's called today the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is not from the temple.

It is the leftovers of the Fort of Antonio. Then this confirms the prophetic word given to us by the

Lord Jesus Christ in the Olivet Discourse. When he says about the temple, not one stone will be left on top of another.

Yet, there are those who say you can go to the Temple Mount, there's a whole stone wall. Jesus says not one will be left on top of another.

In fact, we know exactly, there are scholars and archeologists today who actually know exactly where the

Temple Mount was, and it's in the city of David. That fort is not actually in the proper city of David, but no one listens to them.

The reason why is because once the Talmud came into play, the rabbinic tradition became that that place was the

Temple Mount, and it was accepted universally by Jews because of the Talmud. The Talmud was the first document that said, this is the

Temple Mount. That is, again, from Jewish tradition. It's not backed up by first century historians like Josephus.

It is a physical impossibility for the temple to be rebuilt today because first and foremost, the

Jews have the wrong place in mind. There will be no third temple, and even if there was a third temple, this would not be a place of true worship.

This would not be a place where Jehovah would receive the sacrifices of any type of regularity as an act of worship.

This would be an affront to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So when the Bible refers to this temple that the man of lawlessness sits in, it's talking about the temple of God's people.

It's talking about the church, that this person, this man of lawlessness, sits in the church, and he exalts himself over the people of God.

Again, who in history can fit the bill? We gotta put our critical thinking hats on here.

Any questions so far on any of this? I know this is a lot of information I'm throwing at you. That's like a holy book that the current

Jews use. They don't, they put it over scripture, right? Yeah, so the Talmud was developed by the rabbis in the centuries following the destruction and the dispersion of the

Jewish people. And so the Talmud, I think by the 10th century, it was really well -defined.

And you have some of the great rabbis who basically interpret the

Old Testament, and they give the traditions of the Jewish people. Because you have to understand, Judaism changed dramatically.

Once there's no temple, there truly is no Judaism. Because Judaism centers around the sacrifices.

It centers around temple worship. And so they basically had to rewrite Judaism. And even when you look at the

Passover, for instance, how do you celebrate the Passover without sacrifices? Well, the

Talmud tells us how. This is what we're gonna do now. So they modify all of the feasts, they modify all of the traditions to fit this post -temple world that they're still in.

And this, again, is prophesied by our Lord. The destruction of the Jewish people was prophesied by our

Lord for a particular purpose. And it was to demonstrate the true

Israel of God, the elect of God, being the church made up of Jew and Gentile, the inclusion of the

Gentiles into the faith of Abraham. And again, and to be clear for myself,

I'm a political Zionist. I believe in Israel's right to exist. I believe in their right to build their own temple.

I think that that land is their land. They should do with it as they please. And if they wanted to build a temple politically,

I wouldn't be opposed to that. But I would be spiritually opposed to that because I don't believe it would be a temple of true worship.

And so I believe in the people's right to self -preservation, to the right to defend themselves. And so this is not anti -Semitic.

A lot of folks call this Replacement Theology, and they believe that this is anti -Semitic theology.

I think this is not anti -Semitic. I think this is actually properly Semitic because Jesus, who is the true

Semitic, who is the true Jew, teaches us these things. And so we should follow him. On this matter.

And so any other thoughts or questions on this subject so far? Some of you are just catching up.

We're discussing why the Pope is the Antichrist. And we've gone through the book of Daniel in the seventh chapter and look at the details and information concerning therein.

And now again, we are in 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 1 to 4. And someone should write this,

Notice the Antichrist is also the man of what? Lawlessness. You could put lawlessness or sin.

He's the man of sin or the man of lawlessness. And he is the apostate.

So I want you to write that in there as well. He's an apostate. And verse 3 says,

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day, the coming of the Lord will not come until the rebellion comes first, the apostasy, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

Apostasy simply means turning away from truth, right? Oh, because it's a spiritual rebellion, right?

So similar how you had rebellions in ancient Israel, particularly outside the camp in the wilderness.

You know, you have Quarrel's Rebellion. You know, that was an apostasy. That was a turning away from Moses as the authority, turning away from God as the authority and trusting in others.

And God dealt with that, with that rebellion. And the same is true in the Christian church. There are those who turn away from the faith and they're rebelling and they're turning the hearts of others away from God as well.

And that's the purpose of, you know, that's kind of the definition of apostasy. And again, he opposes and exalts himself against every so -called

God or object of worship. So he takes a seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God, okay?

And so again, the man of lawlessness, he is the apostate who exalts himself over God in the midst of God's people.

That's the church, that's the temple, okay? What else is marked by this

Antichrist? Verse 7 says, For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.

Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the

Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders.

And with all wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved.

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion so that they may believe what is false in order that they may all be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Pretty heavy stuff there. The man of lawlessness, it says his mystery, his work is already at work as Paul was writing this.

What does that mean? Well, I want you to keep a finger in 2 Thessalonians, but I want you to turn to Acts 20. And we'll see what

Paul also says there to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.

After telling them to take care of the flock of God, he says in verse 29, Acts 29,

Paul says, I know that after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

And from among your own selves, from within the church, will arise men speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them.

So when Paul says in 2 Thessalonians that this operation of lawlessness, this operation of the apostasy was already at work, it's because he warns them.

There's gonna be wolves, false teachers, false doctrines are gonna rise from the midst of God's people, from the midst of the congregation.

They're gonna speak twisted things. So again, the apostasy comes from within, okay?

It's not an external force. It's not Islam, it's internal. This is a Christian struggle. This is a doctrine over Christian truth, okay?

And Paul says that this mystery of lawlessness is already at work, which is what he had warned the

Ephesian elders. Are we all tracking with this? We're seeing how congruent this all is?

And in particular, what's to be noted from 2 Thessalonians 2 is that this coming of lawless one is by the activity of who?

Satan. This is the activity of Satan of all power and false signs and wonders.

I want you to write this in the notes. The spirit of apostasy was already at work in apostolic times. Yet the

Antichrist will operate in Satan's power to deceive the laws. Sometimes, you know, again, the more sensational people who talk about Antichrist, usually refer to Antichrist as like Satan incarnate.

No, it's not Satan incarnate. Satan does not have the power or the authority to become carnate in the same way that our

Lord Jesus became incarnate through the miraculous work of the Holy Ghost. And so sometimes they try to paint the

Antichrist as almost like a second Messiah, almost like an anti -equal to Christ.

Jesus is God. There is none his equal, all right? Amen? There is none his equal.

He is God in the flesh. So there is going to be no one who is going to even come close to that.

The Antichrist, again, is someone who is opposed to Christ, and it's exactly the language that we're seeing in 2

Thessalonians 2. He opposes and exalts himself against every God, okay?

That's exactly what the Antichrist, his mission is, to oppose Christ, to oppose his truth, to set himself up as, in a sense, a false

Christ, which is what Jesus says, there'll be many false Christs, many false prophets that will arise and mislead many.

So Satan's power is at work here, deceiving. I want you to turn also to 1

John 2. This is where we get the term

Antichrist from in the Bible. John writes in 1

John 2, verse 18, he says, Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard it, the

Antichrist is coming. So now many

Antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. And notice what it says in verse 19.

And they went out from us, okay? So apostates. But they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.

But they went out that it might become plain that they are not of us.

So these apostates always come from within, okay? Antichrists come from within, okay?

So again, this is not a different religion we're talking about. We're talking about people who claim to be Christians, and they oppose

Christ by offering what Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians as a different gospel, a different Jesus, okay?

And we see this again where the term Antichrist is used. I think it's the only place in Scripture, I'm pretty sure. It's the only place in Scripture where the term

Antichrist appears. And the reason why it's become more popular than maybe the term of sentiment of lawlessness is because it sounds more exciting, doesn't it?

It sounds like a comic book villain. Antichrist, you know, it's more marketable, right?

Again, I told you earlier today that that term is way overused, way overkilled. And again, it's so overkilled,

I'm using it today in the teaching as kind of the subject matter. Because it's become so ingrained, popularized in pop culture and Christian evangelicalism, but it really shouldn't carry all the weight that it does and all the connotations that it does.

Again, the proper term would be the man of lawlessness, yeah. I mean, it can, it certainly can, because I mean, just the word simply means opposed to Christ, right?

So anyone in opposition to Christ, atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, they're all, you know, can be termed

Antichrist. But what's in the context of the verse, clearly Antichrist are those who've come from amongst us.

Yeah, they're those who came from within the church. These are particular Antichrists. And that's why he says, you've heard that Antichrist is coming.

So there is the Antichrist that Paul's referring to, but he says, but right now, really, there are many Antichrists.

So eschatologically, Paul's saying, hey, I know that you're waiting for this particular person, but don't lose sight that there are already many

Antichrists in the world right now, right? And anyone who opposes, actually, no, it's not the only place in scripture that uses the term

Antichrist. I think in 2 John, or yeah, in 2 John 1, verse seven, it says, for many deceivers have gone into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, such one is the deceiver and the

Antichrist, okay? And what was that teaching? It was the Gnostic teaching that Jesus had not become incarnate.

The Gnostics were very popular around the time that John is writing this, and the Gnostics taught that Jesus only appeared to take on flesh, but he didn't actually take on human flesh.

John says, no, the incarnation is vital to Christianity. Jesus truly took on flesh, which is really the theme of the theological underpinning of his first and second epistle, 1

John, because he starts with 1 John 1 by saying, that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, that which we looked upon and have touched with our hands concerning the word of life, the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and we testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the

Father and was made manifest to us. So he's borrowing back from John chapter, his gospel of John chapter one, in the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word was

God, the word became flesh and dwelt among us. John says, no, listen, this word truly became flesh. He's testifying of the truthfulness of the incarnation, that which the

Gnostics were denying. And the Gnostics here in this case, Paul's using very strong theological terms.

These are, again, people who come from within the Christian church, but they're subverting the truth of Christ by denying his incarnation.

What's interesting is that the earliest heresies of the church did not deny the divinity of Jesus. They denied his incarnation, okay?

They denied him becoming flesh. They didn't have a problem with Jesus being God, like the later

Arians would, but they denied that he had truly become flesh. This was the heresy of the

Gnostics. And he says, this is antichrist. This is the work of the deceiver, okay?

So truly, the deceiver, the antichrist, comes from within the church. Isn't that crystal clear from these verses?

It's not some outside thing, some Muslim or some Jew. This is a

Christian, so -called Christian, who opposes Christ and exalts himself over the people of God, yes.

Yes, yes. 1 .2 billion Catholics, okay?

That is the great apostasy. This is counterfeit church. And this was the position of the early reformers, okay?

Last part to put in. From all the evidence that we've seen so far, and this is just a tiny bit of the evidence.

We're barely scratching the surface, really, actually. But here's some things that we can come to a pretty clear understanding of, at least the first two parts.

The last part, I'll leave it up to you to decide. But the antichrist holds a political and spiritual office.

How do we know political? Read Daniel chapter seven. Daniel chapter seven, the little horn, which speaks blasphemous words, comes out of the

Roman Empire, okay? Comes out of the Roman Empire. So this is a political organization.

This is a political person. But it's also a spiritual person. Why? Because not only does he come out of Rome, but he also comes out of the church, according to 2

Thessalonians, according to 1 John and 2 John. This is people who come out of the church.

So it's not just a political organization. It is a spiritual organization. It's a spiritual and political office.

And I believe, by the evidence, in historical evidence and the scriptural evidence, that it is indeed fulfilled in the

Pope of Rome. Remember that the antichrist speaks blasphemous words and opposes

Christ and sets himself in the place of Christ amongst the people of God. In the back page, under the

Catholic Catechism, under the Pope, it says this. The Pope, this is from Catholic doctrine.

This is the Catechism. The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth.

By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor in his flock.

He is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, and the father and teacher of all

Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of counsels, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, and the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all being judged by one,

God himself on earth. Amen.

All right. How much more blasphemous can that little horn be?

Truly a little horn, truly one who is small in stature but speaks great, boastful words. The Council of Trent declared this concerning the

Pope. Sitting in that chair in which Peter, the prince of the apostles, sat to the close of life, the

Catholic Church recognizes in his person the most exalted degree of dignity and the full jurisdiction not based on constitutions but emanating from no less authority than from God himself.

As the successor of St. Peter and the true and legitimate vicar of Jesus Christ, he therefore presides over the universal church, the father and governor of all the faithful of bishops, also of all other prelates to their station, rant, or power what they may be.

So who has supreme authority in the Roman Catholic Church? It's the Pope.

Again, the book My Catholic Faith says the Pope can make and unmake laws for the entire church.

His authority is supreme and unquestioned. Every bishop, every priest, every member of the church, is subject to him.

Friends, who fits the bill? Look at the evidence of Scripture.

This is a political and spiritual office. And this is one that comes out of historic

Christianity, out of historic Christendom. Ours is a historic Catholic faith. Our creeds confirm this.

We are true Catholics in the true sense of the word, okay? But there are those who have deviated from the true, holy, apostolic

Catholic Church, and it isn't us. It is indeed the Roman Catholic Church with its pontiff, with its ruler, with its

Pope. And so I believe, again, the evidence is clear.

There's other things in Scripture that leads me to believe this, particularly in the book of Revelation, which we don't have the time to go into today. But notice in the book of Revelation that, again, the main enemy seems to be

Rome. And the spirit of Rome continues within the Roman Catholic Church.

I saw an interview with some, it was some comedian with Joe Rogan recently, and he said, they were talking about world affairs and empires.

And he says, the Roman Empire didn't really go away, this guy says on this podcast. He says, it became a church.

And it's so true. The Roman Empire didn't go away, it just became a church. And then he says, the

British Empire didn't go away, it became a bank, okay? Think about that.

These are true implications. The Roman Empire is still here, and it's the

Vatican, it's the Roman Catholic Church. In the Vatican itself, interestingly enough, the opposer, the main villain in the book of Revelation actually seems to be the

Emperor Nero, okay? Nero seems to be the one of whom 666 is written of, and there's some pretty good reasons for that.

But notice who sits amongst the throne of Nero. Today in St.

Peter's Basilica is the ancient place, an ancient palace of Nero the Great.

There's a obelisk that's erected in the middle of St. Peter's Basilica, okay? And it was actually, so you know, when the

Catholic Church holds mass there, or when the new pope is elected there in St. Peter's Basilica, it's a very beautiful place, and there's this huge obelisk in the middle of it.

You know that's the Neroic obelisk that was erected during the Neroic persecution of the church?

You know that Christians bled and died on that very square where the pope now reigns supreme from?

Christians and the blood of martyrs were spilled on that square, and it's the very place that the pope parades himself as the head of the church.

This is all prophetic. This is all connected, and it's all evidence, again, that the pontiff of Rome is indeed the man of sin, the man of lawlessness who would mislead

God's people, and because of all the things that we've learned over the last several months concerning Roman Catholicism, concerning the pope,

I believe that our confession is true. I believe that our confession is correct when it states, again, that the pope of Roman Catholicism cannot in any sense be head of the church.

Rather, he is the Antichrist, the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, who exalts himself in the church against Christ in all that is called

God, and the Lord will destroy him with the brightness of his coming. Come, Lord Jesus. Roman Catholicism is not a brother or sister.

It is an apostate faith. It's a deviation from the truth, and we have to stand firm on our Protestant confessions and our biblical confession of faith that would keep us away from the errors of Rome, and so Roman Catholicism, we're not talking about people who are just, you know, our brothers, but they believe a little bit different than we do.

No, this is an apostate church, and its head is the original, is the apostate, and he is the man of lawlessness that is foretold of in Scripture, and so I think this is a pretty compelling argument

I've made. If you have any questions, we don't have time to discuss it in the midst of this congregation, but please come with questions later, maybe during lunch as well.

I'd love to hear what you guys have to say, and we'll close in prayer. Father, we do thank you that you are

Lord and that you have given us truth by means of your word, which is able to help us be secure in our faith.

Lord, we pray, God, that you would help us to discern these things, whether they be true. May we ponder, may we look and examine the

Scriptures, and Father, we pray, God, that you'd guard us from error and give us, Lord, the faith of our fathers, the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the faith of the reformers, the faith of the apostles, and the faith of our

Lord Jesus Christ so that we may not depart from it, and Lord, we pray, God, that with this information, we would be all the more stirred up to share the truth and love with those lost to this apostate faith.

We pray, Lord, that your will be done and sanctify us by means of your word and your truth. Your word is truth, and we pray this in Jesus' name, amen.