The Destruction of the Doctrine of
So important is the destruction of the true identity of the
antichrist that we will follow the previous chapter with a second examination
of this matter. We trust that minds will be enlightened.
We have seen that the modern translations greatly favor the
heretical doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. We have further noted that
this bias is not coincidence, but rather is the result of a carefully
orchestrated program of scriptural sabotage engineered over four centuries
chiefly by the Jesuits.
At the time of the Reformation, Protestants were united in
proclaiming the Papacy to be the antichrist (1 John 4:2-3), the man of sin and
son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3), the little horn (Daniel 7:8), the
beast with seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1), Babylon (Revelation
14:8), the mother of harlots (Revelation 17:5), and the whore (Revelation
17:15). The identification was so convincing, and was verified by such
powerful scriptural evidences, that the Roman Catholic Church was at a loss to
deflect the charges. Eventually the Jesuit innovator Francisco Ribera
succeeded in devising a theory which satisfied Roman Catholics, but its faults
are apparent to any true student of Godís Word. This theory suggested that the
antichrist was to be an evil, Satan-inspired individual who will appear at the
end of the age and pursue the acme of apostasy through terrible persecution
for three and one-half years.
Since this cunning theory lacked scriptural support,
Protestants in former centuries saw it for what it wasóa self-serving Roman
Catholic deception. The theory was rightly given short shrift in Protestant
circles. But in the nineteenth century a chink in Protestant unity on this
issue became evident. The Oxford movement of England, a group of young
Anglican clergymen anxious to bring their church closer to the Church of Rome,
recognized that it could not be achieved while the Anglican Church maintained
the Westminster Confession, which specified the papacy to be antichrist and
the man of sin. Desperately seeking a solution to their problem, they lent
their support to Riberaís theory. So successful was the Oxford movement in its
promotion of this flawed theory that today almost all Protestant churches,
whether ritualistic or evangelical, accept it as their position. It accords
well with the ecumenical motives of most Christian denominations, but it
defies the plain evidence of Scripture.1
Thus we could anticipate that modern translations would
corrupt the Scriptures to destroy the divine evidence identifying the Papacy
as antichrist. They have achieved this aim.
The central heresy of antichrist is not clouded in
darkness. It is the belief that Christ did not come in the flesh.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of
God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it
should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 4:2-3
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist. 2 John 7
Many protest that the Roman Catholic Church strongly
supports the concept that Christ came in human flesh. In this they are
correct, but in his book Facts of Faith Christian Edwardson points out:
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. Christian Edwardson, Facts of
Faith, Southern Publishing Association, 1943; cited in G. Burnside,
The NIV and the Antichrist, 7
The Roman Catholic Church has led out in the proclamation
of the false doctrine that while Christís flesh (nature) was human, it was
nevertheless quite different from ours since it was that possessed by Adam
prior to his Fall. But God declares quite differently:
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:3
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but
he took on him the seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2:16
How then do the modern translations thwart this plain truth
of God? Quite simply, by corrupting the compelling biblical evidence. God
informs us what is the mystery of godliness:
And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16
Let us examine how one typical modern translation renders
this key text:
Beyond all question the mystery of godliness is great: He
appeared in a body. . . . 1 Timothy 3:16 NIV
We have emphasized the fact that the word God has
been altered to He thus destroying a potent text which evidences
Christís divinity. But most Bible students also overlook an equally serious
omissionóthat the term, the flesh is rendered in the NIV as a body.
The key mystery of godliness is not that Jesus appeared in a bodyóangels have
at times done thatóbut that He appeared in the flesh, our flesh, the
same flesh (nature) as that of David and Abraham.
Clearly the mystery of iniquity (2 Thessalonians 2:7) is
the antithesis of the mystery of godliness. It is the denial that Jesus came
in the flesh. This identification is confirmed by the evidence of 1
John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7 quoted above.
The New International Version confuses the matter by
translating the term mystery of iniquity as secret power of
lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:7 NIV). In such a translation the
identifying evidence of the antichrist is weakened. While it is true that the
New International Version does make reference to the chief identifying feature
of the antichristó
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as
coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the
deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 7 NIV
ónevertheless this concept is replaced in the second
reference by "does not acknowledge Jesus" 1 John 4:3.
This translation further diminishes the evidence that Jesus
came in the flesh (nature) of fallen man. We return to the two texts cited
above from the King James Version. These texts should be compared with the
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a
descendant of David, Romans 1:3 NIV
This translation does possess the virtue of demonstrating
that the term flesh as translated in the King James Version does
equally refer to nature. However, the translation seriously weakens the
possession of Davidís fallen nature by failing to emphasize that Christ was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
In respect of the second reference, the entire text is
distorted in such a way as to make the two translations almost unrecognizable
as referring to the same original. Certainly Christís possession of the same
human nature as Abraham is entirely lost.
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abrahamís
descendants. Hebrews 2:16 NIV
Now it is true that the King James Version is forced by
context and obvious intent to insert a few additional words to make plain the
meaning of the text. But it is quite necessary and is demanded by the context.
The translation offered by the New International Version is totally devoid of
any relevance to either the preceding or succeeding verses.
Yet in all fairness we must admit that one text supporting
the fallen human nature of Christ is strengthened by the New International
Version translation. We shall compare the two versions.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit. Romans 8:3-4 KJV
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was
weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in
sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be
fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but
according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4 NIV
That Rome denies that Jesus possessed a fallen nature is
beyond dispute, for to sustain this unscriptural position it proclaimed the
heretical doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
The Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception
. . . was preserved free from all stain of original sin. . . .
She was created more sublime and glorious than that of
all natures. . . .
Very different from the rest of mankind. . . .
The Blessed Virgin . . . by communicating to the Second
Person of the adorable trinity . . . a true human nature of the same
substance with her own. . . . Catholic Belief, 214-217, quoted in G.
Burnside, NIV and the Antichrist, 3
We define that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first
moment of her conception . . . was preserved free from every taint of
original sin. . . .
Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary
was never subject to sin. Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons,
203-204, quoted in ibid.
The merits of Jesus, shall be dispensed through the hands
and by the intercession of Mary. Glories of Mary, 180, quoted in
God has chosen to bestow no grace upon us but by the
hands of Mary. . . . Ibid., 180
Whoever asks and wishes to obtain graces without the
intercession of Mary, attempts to fly without wings. Ibid., 189
Mary is all the hope of our salvation. Ibid., 195
Thou [Mary] are the only advocate of sinners. Ibid., 129
All those who are saved, are saved solely by means of
this divine mother, . . . the salvation of all depends upon preaching Mary.
We ask many things of God and do not obtain them; we ask
them from Mary and obtain them. Ibid., 150
Well may it be asked why God identified antichrist by the
single criterion of the denial of the truth that Jesus came in the flesh.
After all, does not Rome propose numerous disgraceful heresies such as
confession to priests and saints, the baptism of infants, the doctrine of
original sin which declares that we are lost because of Adamís sin, the
immaculate conception, limbo, the issuing of indulgences, and many other
perversions of the Christian faith? This claim is true, and it will be found
that the central doctrine upon which each of these depends is the human nature
of Christ.2 One example
will suffice to illustrate.
The Bible teaches that in order to qualify as our Mediator,
Christ had to be made like unto us in every respect.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like
unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour
them that are tempted. Hebrews 2:17-18
Rome, in denying that Jesus possessed our fallen nature,
not only deprive Christ of His role as our Example, but also disqualify Him
from being our Mediator. Thus, they turn not only to Mary, but also to
"saints" and priests to be mediators between man and God.
The merits and virtue of the sacrifice of the cross are
infinite; but that virtue and these merits must be applied, and this can
only be done by certain means. Doctrinal Catechism, S. Keenan, 129:
New York, Kennedy and Sons, 1846
The priest has the power of the keys, or the power of
delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of
changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God
himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests; . . . the
Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the servant by confirming in
heaven all that the latter decides upon earth. Dignity and Duties of the
Priest, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, 27-28: New York, Benziger Brothers,
Thus it is that the weakening of the identification of
antichrist in the modern translations seriously reduces Godís witness and
warnings concerning this power. It is lulling present-day Protestants into an
ecumenical slumber which will have devastating effects upon their eternal
destinies unless aroused by the power of the valid Word of God.
1 See C.D.Standish and R.R.Standish,
Is Here, 1990; Hartland Publications, Box 1, Rapidan, Virginia 22733
2 A far fuller explanation of
this statement will be found in C.D. Standish and R.R. Standish,
Antichrist Is Here, Hartland
Publications, Box 1, Rapidan, Virginia 22733, U.S.A.