Two Points Made Clear

There were two arguments used against the position taken by the Reformers which have puzzled many:FAFA 203.3

(1) It was claimed that the Apostle John used two distinctions: “an Antichrist” to designate the false teachers of his day, and “the Antichrist,” referring to some superhuman monster of Jewish extraction that would appear just before Christ’s second coming. But on this point Dr. C. H. H. Wright truthfully remarks: “St. John, the only New Testament writer who employs the term, makes no distinction whatever between ‘an Antichrist’ and ‘the Antichrist.’ That distinction was in the main an invention of the learned Jesuit interpreters.” — “Daniel and His Prophecies,” p. 165. London: 1906.FAFA 203.4

(2) The second objection was that while “the Antichrist” would deny the incarnation, for he would deny that “Christ is come in the flesh.” (2 John 7), the pope does not deny this, therefore he cannot be the Antichrist. This argument has seemed so logical and conclusive that Protestants, to a large extent, have given up the Protestant doctrine that the Papacy is Antichrist, and have ceased to protest.FAFA 204.1

This argument, however, is based on a misunderstanding, caused by overlooking one word in the text. Antichrist was not to deny that Christ had come in flesh, but was to deny that He had “come in the flesh,” in “the same” kind of flesh, as the human race He came to save. (See 1 John 4:3; 2 John 7, and Hebrews 2:14, 17) On this vital difference hinges the real “truth of the gospel.” Did Christ come all the way down to make contact with the fallen race, or only part way, so that we must have saints, popes, and priests intercede for us with a Christ who is removed too far from fallen humanity and its needs to make direct contact with the individual sinner? Right here lies the great divide that parts Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. In order to understand this point clearly, let us briefly consider the gospel of Christ.FAFA 204.2