Quote
speratus said:
Schink does interact with the relevant texts and thoroughly refutes your non-scriptural theory of a futuristic Antichrist.
Yes, Schink does "interact" with the relevant texts, but he twists their clear meaning and adds to them, something which the Scripture itself condemns, so as to try and make his case that the Antichrist is the Roman pope. On one hand he admits to the perspicuity of what John writes in regard to the Antichrist, but on the other denies it and adds his own elements to it!! Here is a perfect example:

Quote
part of this apostasy will be, according to I John 2:22; 4:3, that Antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus is come into the flesh. The Pope indeed calls Jesus the Christ, but he robs Jesus of that which makes Him the Christ, that His merits alone have earned for us forgiveness of all sin, life and salvation. The Pope does not deny the fact of Jesus’ incarnation, but he denies the purpose for which He came into the flesh, to be the sole Mediator between God and man. The Pope nullifies the merits of Christ by teaching that we must at least in part work out our own salvation by our works; that we must cancel the punishment for our sins by fasts, prayers, alms, and other works, or that we must have the works of supererogation done by saints put to our credit; that the Mass is an ever repeated sacrifice for sin.
A far more consistent and biblically accurate exegesis of those passages has already been supplied by myself and by Alan Morrison in his article: THE MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS: A Biblical and Historical Exposition of Antichrist.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]