Is the Papacy the Little Horn? The Lawless One? The Antichrist? - Steve Gregg

[00:00:00][music] [music] Um, as far as a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, there's no reference in the Bible to a rebuilt temple in the last days. There are Old Testament references to God restoring his people to their land and then building their temple, but all those were fulfilled. They did rebuild their temple. The prophecies were made before they did so. They were in 70 years in Babylon. And before they came back and rebuilt their temple, many of the prophets predicted that they would. And they did. That's been fulfilled. In the New Testament, there are no predictions that a temple will be rebuilt. Someone says, "But winner, isn't there a temple that the man of sin puts himself in?" Yes, but it doesn't say that's a Jewish temple rebuilt in the last days. There was, after all, a temple standing when Paul made the statement in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there's more than one way that Paul uses the term temple.

[00:00:56]Sometimes it means the church. You cannot just assume that because the man of sin is said to stand in the temple that this is telling us the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but that verse doesn't in any sense prove it. Doesn't Revelation have a temple in it? Yes, there's a measuring of the temple in Revelation 11, but that temple was probably standing when it was written.

[00:01:16]There's no reference to a temple being rebuilt in the last days. Not in the Bible anyway. And there is no reference to the man putting an image of himself in the temple. In fact, the only place you read of an image of the beast even is in Revelation 13. And it does say that the second beast makes an image of the first beast and requires people to worship that image uh or else die.

[00:01:41]But in Revelation 13, if you go through or the rest of Revelation for that matter, you'll never find any reference to the temple being the place where this image is placed.

[00:01:50]There's no reference to this image of the beast ever being put in the temple.

[00:01:54]Now, what the dispensationist does, he says, well, the beast is the same as the man of sin. And in 2 Thessalonians, the man of sin sets himself up in the temple and claims he's God. Yes, that's different. Doesn't say an image of the man of sin. It says the man of sin sets himself up in the temple. The image of the beast is never said to go into the temple. The image of the beast is found only in Revelation 13, and there's no mention of the temple there. The man of sin is mentioned only in first 2 Thessalonians 2. And there's no mention of an image there. And in fact, what is said there is different than that an image of him will be fleshed as he will set himself up there. So I mean there's a lot of attempts to merge scriptures together that don't all belong together.

[00:02:37]And that brings me to the point I really want to talk about in the remainder of our class here today, which is about we have approximately half hour. Not enough time to do it justice, but enough to talk about it a little bit. And that is what about this idea of a future antichrist? Where does that come from?

[00:02:54]Does the Bible predict that there will be an antichrist that will arise in the last days and rule the world and so forth? Well, not by that name anyway.

[00:03:05]Uh the word antichrist is not found in scripture except in the book of first John and the book of second John.

[00:03:16]Outside of these two small epistles, the word antichrist is not in scripture. And in those places, let us find out what antichrist is when mentioned in scripture. In first John, 1 John chapter 2 and verse 18, John says, "Little children, it is the last hour." And as you've heard that the antichrist is coming even now many antichrists have come by which we know that it is the last hour. Okay? Many antichrists have come. The antichrist is coming. And we know it's that that he's come because at the last hour we know that because many antichrist have come.

[00:03:54]Apparently the coming of antichrist John felt was fulfilled in the coming of many antichrist.

[00:04:00]Furthermore, how does he define antichrist? Look at chapter 2 of 1 John and verse 22. 1 John 2:22. He says, "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist. who denies the father and the son. Anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ, John says, is Antichrist.

[00:04:22]In chapter 4, 1 John 4:3 says, "Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist, of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming and now is already in the world."

[00:04:38]What? What is already in the world? The Antichrist. The spirit of the Antichrist. You've heard that he was coming and now he's here.

[00:04:44]When did John write this? In the first century.

[00:04:50]Now, how did John define Antichrist? He said, "The Antichrist, you've heard he's coming and he's now in the world." Okay, so the Antichrist was already in the world when John wrote.

[00:05:01]I hear many prophecy teachers today, I am convinced that somewhere in the world today, the Antichrist lives. He just remains to be fulfilled after the rapture of the church to be revealed.

[00:05:12]Well, I don't think the Antichrist lives today unless he's lives a very long time because he was alive when John was alive. He says, "You've heard that it should come and it's now here in the world." Whatever they had heard was coming with reference to Antichrist, John said it's already come. Thereby, we know it's the final hour. Well, what did he define as Antichrist? Well, whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ is Antichrist. Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ come in the flesh, that's Antichrist. And he says the same thing over in 2 John in 2 John chapter well there's only one chapter but verse 7 he says for many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh this is a deceiver and an antichrist.

[00:05:58]Now some might say but isn't there a difference between the antichrist and an antichrist? Couldn't there be a lot of antichrist but there's one particular antichrist? Well yes could be. In fact, we do find him referring to the Antichrist in 1 John 2:18. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming.

[00:06:18]But he says, as we pointed out in chapter 4:3, this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming. Now, the he he already said in verse chapter 2, 16, you've heard the Antichrist is coming. You've heard the Antichrist is coming. And he says and now is already in the world. So either all antichrists combined are the antichrist or else all deceivers and deniers of Christ are antichrists but one particular antichrist is anticipated but he was already there when John was writing. Uh there may be one particular antichrist that stands out above all others and if so John says he was there in the world already.

[00:07:06]And uh so I don't think and by the way we've just looked at all the passages in the Bible that use the word antichrist.

[00:07:12]There are no others. Yes ma'am.

[00:07:20]>> Yes that's right.

[00:07:22]>> That's right. There are some in fact there are some manuscripts and they would be the Alexandrian manuscripts as opposed to the text of receptus. They leave out the word 'the' before antichrist. So it would just be you have heard that antichrist is coming and now many antichrists have come and that fulfills it. Likewise I think in chapter 4 um where is it? Yeah. Well there there it seems like the antichrist would be in all the doctrines. But the point is the spirit of the antichrist. He said you've heard it's coming and it's here. It's already come. So John does not indicate that there is an additional antichrist to be anticipated after his own time unless all who deny Christ throughout the whole age of the church are the antichrist because he says whoever denies that Jesus the Christ is antichrist. So it's quite ambiguous. One thing we don't have is a prediction of a future individual after John's time who would be the antichrist.

[00:08:19]Now where then do we get the notion that there will be a future antichrist? Well, there are a few passages, not very many, which which have certain bad guys mentioned in them, whom dispensationalists equate with Antichrist. And by the way, church fathers did this, too. The church fathers felt like there were some particular bad guys called Antichrist.

[00:08:39]And maybe even one in particular to be concerned about.

[00:08:43]There is, for example, in Daniel chapter 7, a reference to a little horn.

[00:08:51]This is a of course a symbol. It's a little horn that grows up on the head of a beast that already had 10 horns. But now another little horn comes up and plucks up three of the former 10 etc. Uh this is all symbolic. But this little horn is personified and in verses 24 and 25 it says of this little horn uh the 10 horns are 10 kings who shall rise from the kingdom and another shall rise after him. That's the little horn.

[00:09:15]He shall be different from the first ones. He shall subdue three kings and he shall speak pompous words against the most high. He shall persecute the saints of the most high and shall intend to change times and law and the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a tile. Now here is a a little horn that persecutes Christians, blasphemes God, and um is a serious problem. He grows up, as it turns out, out of the fourth beast. In Daniel chapter 7, the fourth beast is the Roman Empire. So this little horn grows up out of the Roman Empire. By the way, the Roman Empire is no longer around. And therefore, the little horn must have appeared already because he grows up out of the Roman Empire. In fact, the indication is that he grows up and appears upon the fall of the Roman Empire. Because if you look at the imagery, it says in Daniel 7:8, I was considering the horns and there was another horn, a little one coming up among them. This is grown on the head of the uh fourth beast, which was the Roman Empire. Uh and it says by whom the fir three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots and there in this horn were eyes like on eyes of a man and a mouth speaking pompous words. Now he says um it says uh this happened when the beast was destroyed. In verse 11, I watched when the beast I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking and I watched until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. As for the rest of the beast, they had dominion etc et. I was watching and uh later on he sees the little horns activity more but the the little horns rise comes in association with the destruction of the the fourth beast's body and throughout history most um interpreters meaning the church fathers and even the reformers believed the fourth beast is Rome and the the death of the Roman Empire brought the little horn that the little horn rose up in the place of the Roman Empire and that this happened historically Um, however, dispensations think the little horn is a future antichrist who will rise up in a future tribulation period. Now, how do they work that out? Because the little horn grows up out of the Roman Empire.

[00:11:34]How can that be that he's a future individual? Well, they say there will be a revived Roman Empire in the last days.

[00:11:40]Where do they get this? Well, they get this from their imagination because the Bible nowhere says that the Roman Empire will be revived in the last days. What they really get it from is Daniel chapter 2 where Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about an image. It was made of four metals and the fourth metal was legs of iron and these represent the Roman Empire. But the feet of those legs were struck by a stone which was the kingdom of God which grew and filled the whole earth. Now throughout history, Christians believe that the Roman Empire was the original Roman Empire and the kingdom of God was established during the time of the Roman Empire when Jesus came. Dispensationists though don't believe that Jesus established the kingdom when he came. Therefore, the stone has not yet hit the feet yet. The Roman Empire has fallen. Therefore, they have a convenient gap between the ankles and the feet. You've got the ankles and the legs of the statue are the ancient Roman Empire. The feet, however, are a future Roman Empire with about 1500 years gap between the ankles and the feet of the image. Uh so that you have a last days revival of the Roman Empire.

[00:12:47]Why? So that the stone can be future instead of past. In the image, the stone is the kingdom of God.

[00:12:53]Dispensationalists don't believe the kingdom of God was established with the first coming of Christ like he said it was. They believe he failed to do that.

[00:13:00]Pulled it off, postponed it, and he'll establish it when he comes back.

[00:13:04]Throughout history, Christians have believed because the Bible says that Jesus established the kingdom of God at his first coming. And therefore, the stone struck the feet of that image, which was the Roman Empire in the days of the ancient Roman Empire. no reason to import a 1500year gap between the ankles and the feet and there's no reason to suggest a future revived Roman Empire in order to do so. Uh it is it is just wild conjecture on the part of dispensations to stick gaps here and there and everywhere. 2,000-year gaps here, 1500 year gaps there. Though there's not a clue, a hint of any kind in scripture that such gaps are to be found. This is not, by the way, literal interpretation. It is interpretation based on convenience and necessity for a postulate that is an untenable needing to be proved by twisting and manipulating of scripture. Okay, so let me just say this. The little horn who is thought by dispensations to be a future antichrist is actually a figure that rose up out of the Roman Empire according to Daniel. Now let's look at another figure. This is the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. Now the Bible nowhere says that the man of sin is the same is it doesn't call him Antichrist and does not identify him necessarily with the little horn. Though it does appear that Paul was thinking of the little horn when he talked about the man of sin because there are similar things. I mean we don't have to insist that he was talking about the little horn but there is sufficient reason to believe that he probably was because when he talks about the man of sin he says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 let no one deceive you by any means. That day will not come unless the falling away comes first and the man of sin is revealed. The son of predition who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God and that is worshiped so that he sits as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God.

[00:15:00]Now this is what we read of the man of sinned. He opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God.

[00:15:08]And he sits as God in the temple of God as if he is God. And it says also of him a little later on in verse 9, "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan with all power, signs, and lying wonders with all unrighteousness or unrighteous deception among those who perish because they do not receive the love of the truth." Now, he's he's he he portrays himself to be God, sits in the temple of God, has signs and wonders. If this is the same figure as the little horn in Daniel, and I'm going to suggest it likely that it is, though it's not certain, then he also persecutes the saints.

[00:15:44]Now, Paul does not say this man is going to arise in the end times. He does say that this man of sin has to arise before the Lord comes back, but he doesn't say that he'll rise just before the Lord comes back. It is a dispensational assumption that the man of sin must have a career of only three and a half years because they equate the man of sin with the beast in revelation who is said to have a career of three and a half years. But the point here is that Paul does not make such an equation. All he tells us is that there will rise a man of predition son of predition who will position himself in the temple of God.

[00:16:21]Now this is taken by the dispensations to be the the Jewish temple in the last days rebuilt. But this is not likely in my opinion. First of all, there's two better opinions, different from each other, but both better than that one.

[00:16:35]One is that he's talking about the temple that was standing when he was on earth. When Paul wrote this, the temple in Jerusalem was still standing. And when he says the temple of God, there's no reason why his readers would immediately convey this in their mind to some future rebuilt temple in the end times when in fact there was a temple of Jerusalem right now. If if they were to think of a Jerusalem temple, why transport it to sometime centuries off?

[00:16:59]Why not think naturally of the temple there? Now, and there are many interpreters who are not dispensational who think that he was talking about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem that was standing at the time.

[00:17:10]This would be much more natural for Paul to mean and for his readers to understand him to mean that that he means the temple that's there now in Jerusalem when he wrote it then that he's talking about some future temple that would come after this temple's destroyed. There's no hint of that in Paul. Now, another view, and it's one that I personally favor, is that he's not talking about a temple in Jerusalem at all. He says the man of sin will position himself in the temple of God.

[00:17:35]But the term temple of God is found elsewhere in Paul. And he tells us what is the temple of God in his other writings. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6, excuse me, 1 Corinthians 3 verse 16 and 17. 1 Corinthians 3:16-1 17. Paul says, "Do you not know that you, the church, are the temple of God?"

[00:18:02]Same expression. "And that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy. Which temple you are? Who is the temple of God? In Paul's theology, the church is the temple of God. The body of Christ, the Christians are. If you'd look at 1 Corinthians 6, he uses only slightly different language, but equivalent.

[00:18:29]1 Corinthians 6:19 says, "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you're not your own?"

[00:18:38]So the Christian's individual body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. But the church corporate is the temple of God.

[00:18:43]Now when Paul says of the man of sin, he will set himself up in the temple of God. Paul has already set a precedent for what he means by that. Well, he may not have because he may not have written 1 Corinthians first, but we have it first. We have Paul's understanding in 1 Corinthians of what the temple of God is. I might point out that nowhere in Paul's writings do we know of him ever referring to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as the temple of God. Jesus once referred to it as my father's house. But by the end of his ministry, he called it your house. He said to the Jews, "My father's house is to be a house of prayer." Later though, he said, "Your house has left you desolate. It's not God's." He's moved out. It's not the father's house. It's not God's temple.

[00:19:27]It's yours. You Jewish priesthood who reject God and reject Christ, it's a not God's house. He's not there. According to Paul and according to Jesus, the temple in Jerusalem is not God's house.

[00:19:38]The temple of God is the church.

[00:19:41]Therefore, if the man of sin postures himself in the church, the temple of God, that tells us a lot, especially if he's the one who rises upon the fall of the Roman Empire.

[00:19:53]Because after the Roman Empire fell, there was an entity that arose up in Rome in the church that blasphemed God, claimed to be God, required worship, persecuted the saints mercilessly and performed signs and wonders. This entity is called the papacy.

[00:20:13]And when the Roman Empire fell, the pap the popes filled the vacuum. And you know what the early church fathers all believed?

[00:20:22]that when Paul said there's something restraining the rise of the man of sin, the early church fathers did not live to see the papacy come. The papsy arose in the sixth century. The church fathers I'm talking about were in the second and third centuries and fourth. And they all believe that when Paul said something is restraining the man of sin, but when that something is taken away, then the man of sin will rise. They believe Paul was referring to the Roman Empire was restraining him. And they said the reason that Paul was ambiguous about it is because Paul had earlier been kicked out of Thessalonica on the charges that he was speaking things against Rome against the Roman Empire. We read that of course in Acts chapter 17. He was run out of town on the charges of teaching things against Rome. Now he writes to the church in that town Thessalonica and says you know what's hindering the rise of the man of sin but when that is taken out of the way he'll rise. Now if that which hinders is the Roman Empire as every one of the church fathers unanimously believe it was then the taking away of the Roman Empire would speak of the fall of Rome.

[00:21:30]Now Paul's already been accused of being against Rome. He didn't want to be misunderstood and so he doesn't mention what it is. The church there knows what he's talking about. You know what I'm talking about. When that is taken away, then the men arise. Where did he get that idea? Well, how about from Daniel?

[00:21:45]The beast, the Roman Empire dies. The the little horn rises up in its place.

[00:21:51]Therefore, the Roman Empire would have to be taken away before the man of sin could rise. This may not be the correct interpretation, but if it is not, it certainly has had a lot of worthy proponents because I I'll quote from some historians.

[00:22:07]Ebie Elliott said, "We have the consenting testimony of the early fathers from Irenaeus to the disciple the disciples St. John down to Chrysstum and Jerome to the effect that the hindrance to the rise of the antichrist was understood to be the imperial power ruling and residing at Rome. In other words, the emperors. The empire of Rome was that which hindered the rise of antichrist according to all the church fathers from Irenaeus the disciple of John down to Chrysum and Jerome a couple centuries later. Um another writer Ralph Woodro says based on the above texts Justin Martyr Hippolitus Tertullian Sirill of Rome Jerome Ambrose Chrysum and all the other early fathers taught that upon the fall of the Roman Empire the empire would be divided into 10 nations among whom would rise a man of sin as an 11th kingdom.

[00:23:02]That's what all the church fathers taught. They didn't live to see the fall of Rome. So they never identified the man of sin. They just believe that when the Roman heart would fall, he'd rise based on Daniel chapter 7 and based on Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 2. All the church fathers that left any record about this, and there were a lot of them, all believe the same thing. Okay?

[00:23:23]They could have been wrong, but if they were wrong, they were all wrong together. There's no known case of anyone having a different opinion in the early church. Alec, no, no, let's see.

[00:23:32]there a guy named Tanner said, quote, "The Christian Church in general all over the world at that time regarded the thenexisting Roman Empire of the Caesars as the obstacle of which St. Paul had spoken as hindering the appearance of Antichrist upon the scene of the world."

[00:23:48]Another historian named Guinness wrote, quote, "The early writings of the fathers tell us with remarkable unonymity that this hindrance was the Roman Empire as governed by the Caesars and that on the fall of the Caesars, the man of sin would rise." Now, again, we can't base everything we believe on what the church fathers taught. But it's interesting that they all taught exactly the same thing. They all thought that there were no dispensationalists among them who thought this was some future antichrist in the tribulation period.

[00:24:17]They believe this was something that would rise when the Roman Empire would fall. Now, what did rise when the Roman Empire fell? Well, the papacy did. And the reformers who lived after that, looking back on it, agreed with the church fathers, they agreed that the Roman Empire was what Paul was referring to and that Paul turned out to be right.

[00:24:37]History proved him right. When the Roman Empire fell, the man of sin rose. And so the reformers like John Hus, Martin Luther, Olrich Zwingley, John Calvin, John Knox, Tinddale and all the reformers believe that the Roman papacy or the popes were the man of sin or antichrist. Now you might say, but that's more than one man. So, so is the body of Christ more than one man? It's called a new man. God is made of the two Jew and Gentile one new man, the body of Christ, a a corporate entity.

[00:25:10]And the man of sin apparently uh according to the reformers ended up being not a single man but uh a class of man a type of man the popes and uh that the popes were in fact the little horn supposedly. Now do they do they meet the criteria? Did the popes claim to be God? Well, Pope Leo VI in 1897 said, "We, meaning the popes, hold the place of Almighty God on earth."

[00:25:41]Pope Pas the 11th on April 30th, 1922 said, quote, "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the vicor of Christ, which means that I am God on this earth." unquote.

[00:25:59]Here's an extract of an actual papal claim made by Pope Nicholas.

[00:26:04]Pope Nicholas said, quote, "The Roman pontiff," which means the Pope, "Judges all men, but is judged by no one. I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all and in all and above all. Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what can you make me but God?

[00:26:27]Wherefore, he continues, no marvel if it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yay, with the precepts of Christ. For where Christ bidth Peter to put up his sword and admonishes his disciples not to use any outward force in revengeing themselves, so do not I, Pope Nicholas, writing to the bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords.

[00:26:53]Wherefore I conclude commanding, declaring and pronouncing to stand upon necessity of salvation that every creature be subject to me," unquote. Did the popes make blasphemous claims? Did they claim to be God? Did they rise up in the temple of God, the church, and make claims of being God and demand worship? They absolutely did. There's no question of it. It's documented. These come from Catholic records, not from Protestant records.

[00:27:19]These are the claims the popes made.

[00:27:21]It's interesting that that one Pope Nicholas said, "I have the right to change times and laws." If you read Revelation, I mean, Daniel 7 carefully, it says, "The little horn seeks to change times and laws." Interestingly enough, the Pope inadvertently claimed to be that man of sin, that that little horn.

[00:27:39]Have miracles been performed, signs and line wonders? The man of sin comes in the power of Satan and signs and line wonders. Did Did the popes do that?

[00:27:47]Well, the following miracles have been claimed by the Roman Catholic Church to have occurred. Crucifixes have spoken.

[00:27:53]Images have come down and lit their own candles. Idols have sweat, turned their eyes, moved their hands, opened their mouths, healed sicknesses, raised the dead, mended broken bones. The stigmata, which are the marks of Christ's crucifixion, have appeared on the hands and feet of some people. Many have claimed that they have had Mary appear to them and heal their sicknesses, etc. We all know about these things. If you know anything about church history, even about the present, there there are modern claims of Mary appearing and healing people. All of this associated with the pope's authority. All of this is part of the papal organization.

[00:28:26]uh which is not the church. It is simply the papal organization, a man-made organization that is against Christ in its doctrines and in its historical practices. Well, what about persecuting Christians? The little horn persecutes the saints. Pope ever do that?

[00:28:42]Well, during the what we call the middle ages, about 1,000 years from about 500 to,500 AD, it is estimated about 50 million Christians were killed by Catholic forces. Not all of them by direct decree of the pope, but by Catholic kings and so forth who are loyal to the pope as well because these people were anti-atholic. The Waldenzes, the Albagenzis, and the and many groups like that that are not well known today, but but opposed the popes because they were Christian.

[00:29:12]uh were killed, were were put to death in the Spanish Inquisition and so forth, among other things. They were beaten and mutilated. They were burned and crushed with weights, impaled and nailed to trees. Their heads were twisted off. Their children were brutally killed before their eyes and then their carcasses thrown into hungry dogs. Their women were raped and dismembered. And this continued for the greater part of a thousand years when the Roman church was the only church available. If you disagreed with them and wanted to read your Bible, you faced torture on the rack or worse. And uh this happened for about a thousand years. Yes, I dare say he wasted the saints. This man of sin. You know, interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church when accused of being the man of sin didn't like the accusation being applied to it. And so they came up with something else. In 1591, a Spanish Jesuit named Francisco Rivera wrote a 500page commentary espousing the view that the antichrist in scripture refers to a singular future ruler who would arise in the last days. This view is called futurism and the first person to ever come up with it was a Spanish Jesuit defending the pope against the charge of being antichrist in 1591. His name was Francisco.

[00:30:29]Everyone knows this who studies the history. No one disputes this. The first person to suggest that the antichrist is a one individual living in the last days who've not yet come was a Spanish digit coming to the defense of the pope who for hundreds of years had been identified as the antichrist by protestants and people who didn't believe it in what the pope said. Um by the way this teaching of Francisco Rivera was rejected by all Protestants for over 200 years until Samuel Maitland a librarian for the Archbishop of Canterbury Church of England became the first Protestant to accept futurism.

[00:31:01]This man wrote 50 books, exercised strong influence over Protestant thinking. Futurism later was picked up by John Nelson Darby and became part of the dispensational system. So that the belief in a future antichrist came into evangelical Christianity from a Jesuit to defend the pope from the charge that all Christians who were not Catholics believed that the pope was the man of sin. As far as the beast in revelation, that's someone else altogether. Not the man of sin or the little horn. beast is a system that can be demonstrated by ex Jesus. Unfortunately, we can't do it right now. We will have more to say on such things a little later. [music] >> [music]