Page 21 - BV16

The Antichrist Most Definitely Is Not a Person! 21

pope) as “nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist....For who is the man of
sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and per-
dition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All the conditions
have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny” (Luther, First Principles, pp. 196,
197).

In 1540 Luther wrote: “Oh, Christ, my Lord, look down upon us and bring upon us thy day
of judgment, and destroy the brood of Satan in Rome. There sits the Man, of whom the apostle Paul
wrote (II Thessalonians 2:3, 4) that he will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God --
the man of sin, that son of perdition...he suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments
above the commandments of God” (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 281).

It is quite evident that Luther did not believe the Antichrist would be some lone individual at
the end of time, for he said: “The Antichrist of whom Paul speaks now reigns in the court of Rome.”
As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “These ideas became the dynamic force which drove Luther
on in his contest with the Papacy” (article: Antichrist, Vol. 2, p. 61).

Andreas Osiander (1498-1552). A leader with Luther in the German Reformation, Osiander also
took a stand against the Roman Antichrist who spoke words against YEHOVAH and who had
seated himself in YEHOVAH’s temple. His concept of Antichrist was not limited to one individual
man -- he believed it was the Papal ecclesiastical system which rose with the fall of Rome and would
extend until the time of the end. He felt that the Papal contention that the Antichrist was some fu-
ture person had caused people to look ahead for a fictitious Antichrist and thus overlook the REAL
Antichrist at Rome who had already exerted his influence for centuries (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 2, p.
296, 299).

John Calvin (1509-1564). An eminent French reformer second only to Luther in influence, Calvin
wrote concerning the Pope -- “I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the
gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist -- I deny him to be the successor of Peter...I
deny him to be the head of the church” (Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219-220). In his classic Insti-
tutes, he wrote:

Some people think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff
Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same
charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language
we adopt....I shall briefly show that [Paul’s words in II Thessalonians 2] are not capable
of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.

He then pointed out that the Antichrist was to conceal himself under the character of the
church, “as under a mask,” and that the Papacy had fulfilled the characteristics set forth by Paul.

John Knox (1505-1572). Especially known for his reformation work in Scotland, Knox was perse-
cuted from country to country until the affairs of Scotland were finally in Protestant hands. He
preached that Catholic traditions and ceremonies should be abolished as well as “that tyranny which
the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church” and that he should be acknowl-
edged as “the very Antichrist, the son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks” (Knox, The Zurich Let-

The Berean Voice July-August 2002