Page 18 - BV9

Again, those who taught things contrary to that which was from the beginning were termed
"antichrist." By teaching such doctrines they denied the Father and the Son. But it was not a bare-
faced, blatant denial -- for John mentions the seductive nature of these teachings. Some, upon read-
ing the word "denied," assume the Antichrist will be an atheist -- one who denies the very
existence of Yehovah -- or at least an infidel! We hear talk about the Antichrist being "the World's
number one ATHEIST" (Howard C. Estep, Antichrist's Kingdom, p. 24), or that "the blasphemy
of the little horn seems...to be downright, barefaced INFIDELITY" (V.K. Van De Venter, Some
Errors of Futurism, p. 8). However, the early Christians had never heard of an infidel Antichrist.
Apparently this idea was first taught in a ninth century commentary by Berengaud (Guinness, op.
cit., p. 125).

Fred Peters, in his article The Mystery of Antichrist, wrote: "When we teach that the Pa-
pacy (the dynasty of popes) is the Antichrist, in common with all the great Reformers and Protes-
tants for 1000 years past, we are often told...that the Antichrist has to be an unbeliever, an atheist,
an infidel, which the Pope is not Thus with a wave of the hand is the mighty prophetic teaching,
that shook the Papacy to its foundation, dismissed....Often an earnest seeker asks of some futurist
preacher if the Pope is the Antichrist of the Bible, and the matter is settled in a minute, in the most
superficial way, by saying, 'No, for he does not deny the Father and the Son'...and that ends the
subject, for the seeker does not seek further along that line, unless he has a firm resolve to know all
the truth, and why the old Reformers and Protestants thus taught" (Old Fashioned Prophecy Maga-
zine, reprint of 1942 edition, p. 29).

Those "antichrists" that the apostle John mentioned were not atheists, but professing Chris-
tians. Their teachings were "seducing" Christians into counterfeit doctrines. Teaching atheism
would not have this seductive effect, for it does not even pretend to be a Christian doctrine. What,
then, is meant by the statement that they denied the Father and the Son? It was not that they denied
the existence of Yehovah -- they denied Him in other ways. They denied Him by claiming to be
Christians, yet adhering to false doctrines which were not the original teachings of the church
founded by Yeshua. This point becomes clear when we see how this word "deny" was used in the
scriptures.

1/. Jude, like John, wrote of the apostasy that was creeping into the Church: "It was needful
for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith that was
once delivered unto the saints." Why? "For there are certain men crept in unawares...turning the
grace of our God into lasciviousness, and DENYING the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus
Christ" (Jude 3, 4). Notice that these false teachers were so deceptive with their novel doctrines
that they "crept in unawares." By their erroneous and counterfeit doctrines, they denied the Lord!
Nothing is said that would indicate these apostates denied the existence of Yehovah. If they had
come in among the Christians denying the existence of Yehovah, in NO WAY could they have
come in unawares.

2/. Peter likewise wrote of apostasy that would develop within the Church. "There shall be
false teachers among you, who privily [secretly, in a hidden way] shall bring in damnable here-
sies, even DENYING the Lord that bought them...and many shall follow their pernicious ways" (2
Peter 2:1-2). Clearly these false teachers were not denying the existence of Yehovah, for that
would not deceive those Christians to whom Peter wrote. The way they denied Him was by

18