A Cloud of Witnesses

I found an interesting list of quotes from some of the great Reformers and spiritual giants of the past concerning the Roman Catholic Church. I will post them below for your reading [dis]pleasure. As you read, remember that we may have lost site of the meaning of what the word “antichrist” means. We most often think of the prefix “anti-” as meaning “against,” but in context of antichrist it actually means “in place of.” So these men were not looking for someone or something that sought to destroy Christ but sought to set itself up in place of Christ. This is the true sense of what the word means.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): “Luther … proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy … And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome.” Taken from J. H. Merle D’aubigne’s History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.

Based on prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.

John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): “Some persons 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 Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract “that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church.” As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself…speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.” Taken from Philip Schaff’s, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them.” Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.

John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped…claiming the highest power, and highest honour…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.

Charles Spurgeon: “It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”

Popery is contrary to Christ's Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.”

A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

Why is it that today we are so eager to embrace Rome? Were these men wrong, or has the church of today lost sight of something? Or has the Catholic Church changed? Though my heart rebels at what these men taught, I do find it presumptuous to think that little ol’ me knows better than all of these giants of the faith.

Comments (6)

1
Anonymous's picture

Calvin wasn’t really a Presbyterian, that was the Scottish adaptation of Calvin’s views as a Reformer. I’d rather see him listed as “Reformed” than “Presbyterian.” He’d probably rather simply see “Christian.”

2
Anonymous's picture

It takes guts to place such a politically incrorrect post. However, I belive regaining a sense of history is vital to today’s Christian Church and I thank you for reminding us of what the Reformers were fighting.We simply don’t understand the price the Reformers paid to free Christians from the church of Rome. Many thousands of Christians were murdered because they would not compromise their biblical faith and confess the doctrines of Rome. Men, women, and children paid with their lives to defend against doctrines which are today slithering back into the evangelical church. It is a sad thing to see. But it is not surprising in such an age of biblical and historical illiteracy.

3
Anonymous's picture

Yes, they were wrong. Attitudes like this lead to horrible conflicts, such as the 100 Years War, that are a stain on church history. We don’t know who the antichrist will be, scripture doesn’t reveal this to us, and it’s destructive to speculate about it.

BTW, many of the same men were wrong about other things, too. Luther, for example, wrote some things that were profoundly anti-semitic, and encouraged the violent suppression of peasants. Here, for example, is what Luther wrote about peasants who were revolting against the tyrannical nobility: “Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret… .” (Luther, “Against the Murderous Peasants”). And here, for example, is a quote from one of Luther’s anti-semitic tracts, speaking of how he believed Jewish people should be treated: “First, that their schools and synagogues should be set on fire … Second, that their houses too shall be destroyed … Third, that they shall all be deprived of their prayer books and the Talmud, which teach such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy … Fourth, that all their rabbis should be forbidden to teach, on pain of death … Fifth, that Jews shall be deprived of safe conduct and permission to use roads.” (Luther, “On Jews and Their Lies”).

My point isn’t to besmirch Luther, who in many other respects was admirable. The point is that name dropping adds little to the argument. I’ve seen on this blog strong rhetoric about fidelity to scripture, and it seems to me that arguing by reference to these “authorities” rather than by exegesis of the actual Biblical texts is inconsistent with those sentiments.

4
Anonymous's picture

Dopderbeck - You could find points of doctrine with any of the above-mentioned men that both you and I would disagree with, I am sure. The point is not what these men believed individually. The point is in the title of my post - they are “a cloud of witnesses” that despite differences in the times they lived and in much of what they believed, they found common ground in this area (though I’m sure there were many other areas of agreement as well). To disagree on this point you disagree with ALL of these men. That was my entire point - it was not even to debate the issue…

5
Anonymous's picture

It takes time and courage to study the doctrines of Rome but the more you dig into the error the more you see how antichristian it is. This system has never been able to anwer such a simple question: What must I do to be saved? Instead it darkened the truth behind a cloud of sacrifices, indulgenses, countless intercessors and other substitutes of the Gospel of Christ. The Roman Church has truly changed since the times of these brave man of God. She has become sweet and seductive as a prostitute to attract compromisers.

6
Anonymous's picture

As someone who came out of Roman Catholicism and is now reformed and baptistic, I am one who wishes more people would understand the false gospel of Rome. I am still protesting.