[vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern”][vc_column width=”1/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1570975714619{background-color: #ddba80 !important;}”][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”English Menu”][vc_empty_space][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”Contact Contribute”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Volume 4. Number 2-2
Antichrist Today
The actual word antichrist is used by only one
Bible writer – by St. John in his first and second Epistles.
However, it is generally recognized that the apostle Paul
refers to the same figure in 2 Thessalonians 2, where he
warns the church about the “man of sin,” or “mystery of
lawlessness.”
Few figures have stirred the imagination and
anxious forebodings as much as the mystery figure of
antichrist. As different generations of Christians have
scanned the horizon for signs of the end of the world,
they have thought to have discovered the antichrist in
such men as Nero, Constantine, Napoleon, Hitler or
Stalin. Not to be discouraged by other precocious
attempts at identification, some wild-eyed apocalyptic
enthusiasts suggest that Dr. Henry Kissinger is the long
looked for antichrist.
Views of the Early Church
After the passing of the apostles, it was generally
supposed that the great enemy of the church would
appear on the scene after the downfall of the Roman
Empire. Antichrist was thought of in terms of a
grotesque, superhuman antagonist of the Christian faith
who would make war on the church some time in the
future. Thus, the view of the early church was futuristic,
although the type of futurism then espoused was quite
different from the futurism which is popular in the
evangelical wing of the church today.
Views of the Reformers
In the sixteenth century the church was awakened
and shaken by an evangelical revival known as the
Reformation. Although there were several branches of
the Reformation, and there were points of disagreement,
there was complete unanimity on two things:
1. The Reformers came to a united understanding
on the meaning of justification by faith. They
unanimously upheld its primacy and centrality in the
Christian theology.
2. The Reformers came to the united
understanding that it was the work of antichrist to
oppose and corrupt the glorious gospel truth of
justification by faith. To the Reformers, justification by
faith was the great truth upon which the church stood or
fell. To take this away was to take away the very life of
the church. No greater harm could be done than to rob
the church of justification by faith. And since the
religious establishment of their day opposed the great
Reformation doctrine, the Reformers unitedly declared
that that revered religious establishment was antichrist.
It is hard for us to appreciate the daring and very
shocking stance of the Reformers. In their day there was
only one church structure. Reverenced for centuries, it
was seen to be the holy city on earth, the very gate of
heaven. To call it antichrist was worse than pointing the
incriminating finger at your own mother. Nor can we
appreciate the Reformers’ conviction on this matter (for it
was a sincere theological conviction) unless we
appreciate how strongly they felt about the importance of
the subject of justification by faith.
Whatever we may think today about the
Reformers’ views on antichrist, we have to acknowledge
that they were so widely held by Protestants for 300
years that they became known as the “Protestant view” of
prophetic interpretation.
Views of the Counter Reformation
and Modern Futurism
Naturally, the established church was not going to
appreciate the damning appellation of antichrist. Being
challenged to present a plausible alternative
interpretation of Bible prophecy, Jesuit scholarship
rallied to the Roman cause and presented what became
known as the futurist system of interpretation. In this,
antichrist was said to be still future and therefore could
not be the papal church. Three hundred years later, these
same futurist views took root on English Protestant soil;
and today they are so widespread among evangelicals
that they are almost a test of evangelical orthodoxy in
some circles.
The Biblical Perspective
Whether we subscribe to the Reformers’ view that
Rome is antichrist or to the popular evangelical views of
today which declare that antichrist is yet to come, we are
still in danger of missing the vital biblical message about
antichrist. If we content ourselves with the thought that
the Reformers were correct in their identification, we are
in danger of blinding ourselves to the biblical warnings
with a sort of Pharisaical complacency or Protestant
self-righteousness. If we gaze off into the future,
especially looking to events among the Jews in the
Middle East, we will also fail to be aroused by the
biblical warnings about antichrist. For what the Bible has
to say about antichrist is not given as mere information,
and certainly not information to gratify or titillate idle
curiosity about the future. What the Bible says about
antichrist is to warn and activate the Christian
congregation.
The Bible presents four outstanding features of
antichrist:
1. The Religious Character of Antichrist
The Greek prefix anti means in the place of, or in
the stead of. It may also contain the idea of substitution.
For instance, when Paul says that Christ “gave Himself a
ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6), he does not use the ordinary
word meaning ransom (Greek – lutron), but he uses the
prefix anti (Greek – antilutron). Girdlestone, as well as
other linguists, points out that the word literally means
substitutionary ransom.
Antichrist therefore refers to some figure who puts
himself in the place of Jesus Christ. He is a substitute
Christ. Standing in the room of Jesus Christ, he tries to
carry on the work of Christ. Yet his gospel is really
“another gospel.” Says G.C. Berkouwer:
This “religious” character of the opposition preoccupied the
Reformers, Theirs was not just the bitter tone of antipapism. They
were predominantly concerned and anxious about the well-being of
the church…. For the Reformers the antichrist was all the more
dangerous because he donned this religious cloak…. During the
Reformation, this theme of the antichrist’s taking his seat in the
temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] was taken very seriously. The temple
was not in Jerusalem, but the church, and the antichrist strategy
was primarily to drive the true God out of this temple and replace
Him. – G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 268, 269.
2. The Present Reality of Antichrist
John’s antichrist was not merely a future identity.
He was a present reality.
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists;
whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us,
but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no
doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be
made manifest that they were not all of us. – 1 John 2:18, 19.
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.
. . . 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 is it in the world.
– 1 John 4:3.
The apostle Paul also declared, “. . . the mystery of
iniquity doth already work . . .” 2 Thess. 2:7. So
antichrist must always be seen as a present reality-in
A.D. 65, in 1517, or today. Antichrist’s appearance
belongs to the “last days,” and according to St. John, the
spirit of antichrist manifested in the false teachers was a
harbinger of the end time. The church is an
eschatological community which has in the gift of the
Holy Spirit the “down payment” of the inheritance (Eph.
1:14); and as God’s people wait for Christ to return, they
must realize that they live in the hour of the working of
antichrist.
We must not deny that antichrist will have a future
and final manifestation. But the trouble with a
thorough-going futurism is that it is blind to the present
reality of antichrist. If we do not discern the work and
forms of antichrist from New Testament times, especially
the great papal antichrist, how can we discern the work
and form that he will assume in his final eschatological
manifestation? The Biblical warnings do not merely tell
us that “the hour is coming,” but they declare that “the
hour is coming, and now is.”
When the early church lost the clear Biblical truth
of justification by faith, it also lost its clear
eschatological vision. The “last day” became an event in
the far distant future, and the church’s mentality was
decidedly “futuristic.” With the rediscovery of
justification by faith in the sixteenth century,
eschatological hope revived, and the church again saw
itself living in the end time. G.C. Berkouwer says:
Luther felt himself surrounded by great eschatological
tensions, and part of this for him included the role played by the
antichrist. For Luther the antichrist was not a remote figure of
some future “end-time”, but a threatening and dangerous possibility
each and every day. . . . The main point was that the danger was
present, not relegated to the future.
Clearly, the actuality of the antichrist as portrayed by John
accords with the entire eschatological proclamation of the New
Testament. Aithaus correctly observed that the New Testament
proclamation of the antichrist is not an irrelevant prediction of
some remote future, but an alarm signal. “The Church must always
look for the antichrist as a reality present among it or as an
immediately threatening future possibility. . . . The recognition of
the antichrist is a deadly serious matter; all other talk about
antichrist is idle and irresponsible play.” – Ibid., pp.263-268.
As history moves on, the church is challenged to
see the configurations of antichrist in his most current
form of opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The
antichrist beast of the Revelation has seven heads, which
symbolize the different forms he has assumed in his
opposition to God’s truth from one age to another.
It is not good enough to see the guise of antichrist
in A.D. 65 when John confronted the gnostic heresy, or
in 1517 when Luther nailed his protest on the door of the
religious establishment. Antichrist is a present reality.
We must see how he is working today.
3. The Internal Danger of Antichrist
To look for antichrist as a foe external to the
church is to miss a vital part of the Biblical warning.
Antichrist is not merely an enemy at the gate; he has
infiltrated the city. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing
among the flock. He looks like a Iamb, but speaks as a
dragon. He is, as his name suggests, a masquerader of
Christ, and his message is a substitute gospel. The
warnings of John and Paul make it very clear that he
proceeds from the church itself. “Because the danger
comes from within, the church has added reason to
beware in her own existence.” – Ibid., p.269.
4. The Human Form of Antichrist
Finally, it is a mistake to look for antichrist in the
form of the bizarre, the fantastic, the superhuman or the
grotesque. The Bible stresses his very human
configuration. He is called the “man of sin.” 2 Thess. 2:3.
He has a human number (Rev. 13:18). He has eyes like
the eyes of man (Dan. 7:8). Certainly he has donned the
religious cloak, but we must remember that, as Luther so
clearly perceived, the chief human sin is the religious
sin.
What is clear in the New Testament references to
“the antichrist” is that this is not a supernatural or
superhuman concept, but takes place and manifests itself
on a human level. Behind the antichristian powers the
shadow of the “demonic” may fall, but with the concept
of “the antichrist” we find ourselves not on some remote
evil terrain, but on the well-known terrain of our daily
human existence. Indeed, the human level of the
antichrist is one of the most compelling messages of the
New Testament. It is a human force-a human “anti”-that
elevates itself and disintegrates through the victory of the
Lamb. – Ibid., p. 278.
Conclusions
Let us conclude by saying that the real force of the
Biblical picture means that antichrist is religious and not
irreligious, present and not just future, internal and not
external, and familiarly human and not grotesquely
superhuman. This means that we cannot afford to gaze
back to the remote past or forward into the distant future.
Identifying antichrist today is not a matter of throwing
stones at Rome or the liberals. It is a matter of searching
our own house and hearts, and allowing the Biblical
message of grace alone, Christ alone and faith alone to
call all that we do or teach into question. What are the
gospel substitutes of this decade of the 70’s? What have
we evangelicals put in the place of the glorious work of
God in Jesus Christ? That with which we are all too
familiar, that which we have baptized and revered, that
which has become part of our own sacred tradition –
maybe it is here that antichrist is at work today. One
thing is certain: Unless by divine enlightenment we can
discern the work of antichrist today, we have no
assurance that we will discern his manifestation
tomorrow.
Antichrist at Work Today
Before we identify the work of antichrist in the
1970’s, we must be reminded of one more thing. Since
antichrist’s chief work is a diabolical substitution for
Christ and His gospel, we can identify antichrist only as
we keep looking at the gospel. The only truly successful
way to detect a counterfeit dollar bill is to be thoroughly
acquainted with a genuine one.
The Gospel
The gospel is the good news about the Person and
work of Jesus Christ, the second Adam. In the whole
stream of human history there are only two men who
have universal significance-Adam and Jesus Christ.
Adam was not merely the biological father of the race.
He was the first representative of the whole human race.
He acted for all. His sin involved all . . . by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners…” Rom. 5:19.
Consequently, the whole stream of human history has
been corrupted by human sinfulness, and all stand under
the judgment of the law. None of that history can satisfy
the demand of holiness, for even the lives of the best
saints fall short of the glory of God.
Into this sinful stream of human history, God sent
forth His Son to be our “everlasting Father” (Is. 9:6), our
second Adam, our new Representative. His name was
Immanuel – “God with us.” In Jesus Christ we see God
with us in poverty and humiliation, God with us in trial
and sorrow, and finally, God with us in suffering and
death. More than that, Jesus was “God . . . for us.” Rom.
8:31. What He did in all His glorious acts of goodness
was done for us – it was done in our name and on our
behalf, for He was our Representative who acted for us
before the bar of eternal justice. By sinless living He
fulfilled the precepts of the law for us, and by His dying
He satisfied the penalty of the law for us. On our behalf
He strove with sin and annihilated its power. In His
human nature He engaged the devil in hand-to-hand
combat and destroyed his power. He tasted death and
abolished it.
…Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of
broken laws and commandments which always hung over our
heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His own
head on the cross. And then, having drawn the sting of all the
powers ranged against us, He exposed them, shattered, empty and
defeated, in His final glorious triumphant act – Col. 2:14, 15,
Phillips.
All that Christ did is ours to be claimed by faith.
His victory is ours. So the apostle says, “. . . by the
righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men
unto justification of life.” Rom. 5:18.
There are three things we need to say about this
good news of Jesus Christ:
1. The gospel is about a historical event. It is about
Jesus Christ coming into the world and not about Jesus
Christ coming into our hearts. It is something which has
happened in space and time. It is historically objective.
Christianity is the only truly historical religion. It alone
proclaims a salvation based on a concrete outside-of-me
event. Of course, the gospel has subjective benefits. It
has effects and fruits in the hearts of all who believe it.
But in the gospel itself there is not one subjective
element. It happened completely outside of you and me.
The gospel brings to view a new holy history – the
thirty-three years which Jesus Christ lived on earth. In
the death of Jesus Christ, God rejected and punished our
sinful history; and having buried it with Jesus Christ, He
brought forth that new history. Now He proclaims to us
that He accepts us as righteous solely on the basis that
He has accepted His Son and our Representative, Jesus
Christ. The gospel is the good news that the saving deeds
have taken place, the redemptive transaction has been
sealed by Christ’s blood and attested to by His
resurrection from the dead. God’s liberating act has been
carried out, and humanity is cleansed, accepted and
restored in the Person of Jesus Christ. The gospel is
historical.
2. The gospel is about a unique history. There is
no other event, and can be no other event, like the Christ
event. His holy history is unique. In the whole stream of
human history, Christ alone is without sin. We must
never compromise the unique sinlessness of Jesus Christ.
Only One is absolutely righteous in reality and fact. The
saints can be absolutely righteous only by the merciful
reckoning of Christ’s life by faith alone. No one but
Christ, the slain Lamb, is able to open the book and look
thereon (Rev. 5:1-5).
3. The gospel is about an unrepeatable history.
This is the great emphasis given by the writer to the
Hebrews. The offering of Christ was once and for all:
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth
daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices,
which can never take away sins: but this Man, after He had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool.
For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified. – Heb. 10:10-14.
We are never called upon to initiate another
redemptive event. Nothing needs to be added to what
Christ has already done. Nothing can be added to it. God
Himself cannot add to it. We say it reverently but
decidedly: There is one thing that God could not do
again – the giving of and offering of His Son, Jesus
Christ. Paul tells us that with Him God gave us “all
things.” Rom. 8:32. To suggest that God could do this
again is to imply that God did not really give everything
the first time. But He did. He emptied all heaven in one
Gift. He poured out all the accumulated love of eternity.
He kept nothing back, but gave all He had to give. The
Christ event is an unrepeatable history.
This unique, unrepeatable event, this holy history
of Jesus Christ, is the focal point of Biblical
proclamation. This invasion by God into human history,
these mighty deeds of incarnate God, this awesome,
infinite act of atonement, is the one great preoccupation
of the apostolic message. Gospel preaching is the
constant exposition of this historical Christ event and the
unfolding of its significance for men and women
everywhere. All who believe are justified, not on the
grounds of their faith, but on the grounds of the saving
acts of God already done in Jesus Christ.
The Substitute Gospel
It is the work of antichrist to substitute “another
gospel” for the gospel. He causes men to focus on other
events and experiences rather than on the unique Christ
event and unrepeatable representative experience of
Jesus Christ.
This masterly substitution does not consist in the
enemy’s putting something bad in the place of something
good. (This would not be deception.) But he works by
putting something which is good in its right place in the
very room of the glory of God.
For instance, personal righteousness is a good
thing. Believers should live righteously, soberly and
godly in this world (Titus 2:12). And the Holy Spirit is
given to empower them to do this, for it is only by His
indwelling that they can live righteously (1 John 3:7).
But in the theology of the medieval church, this personal
righteousness of the believer was put in the room of the
vicarious righteousness of Jesus Christ. The Reformers
cried out against this as the doctrine of antichrist, not
because they were against personal righteousness (as
they were charged by Rome), but because they were
against putting even this good thing in the room of
Christ’s righteousness. In his masterly volume on The
Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Dr. James Buchanan
points out that the heart of Rome’s error was to put the
new birth of the believer in the room of the imputed
righteousness of Jesus Christ-for this means putting
something subjective and existential in the room of
Christ’s objective and historical saving acts.
What is so plausible about the work of antichrist is
that he uses that which is holy to effect his clever
substitute gospel. And what is more holy than the work
of the Holy Spirit? Under the guise of honoring the Third
Person of the blessed Trinity, antichrist brings in another
gospel, for he substitutes the gracious work of the Spirit
in us for the vicarious work of Christ for us as the
ground of our justification unto life eternal.
The work of the Holy Spirit in us is a great and
glorious work (2 Cor. 3:18). But it is not to be put in the
place of the gospel. We must not confuse the work of the
Second and Third Persons of the blessed Trinity. Christ’s
work was substitutionary. It was done for us-without our
participation. We had no part in that righteousness.
Furthermore, that work, being complete, is the only
grounds of our acceptance with God. The same thing
cannot be said about the work of the Holy Spirit. His is
not a substitutionary work. Being a work within us, we
do have a vital part in the life of new obedience which
He inspires us to live. Furthermore, His work is not yet
complete, and for some it has not even started. It can
never be a ground of our acceptance with God.
What Christ has done, therefore, is the gospel.
And what is more, it is the “full gospel.”
We earnestly believe that, were Luther alive today,
he would level the same basic criticism at the evangelical
church as he did at the Roman church nearly 500 years
ago. While evangelicalism does not advocate a bald
justification by personal righteousness, it cannot be
denied that the doctrine of justification through the
vicarious righteousness of Jesus Christ has slipped out of
sight in most evangelical circles. The fact is that
evangelicalism today stands much closer to the Roman
Catholic tradition than to the Reformers.2
In the first place, the question of justification
before a holy God is not the burning question of the
current evangelical scene. (Let us thank God for the
exceptions.) We take it for granted that God is gracious
and that He forgives sins and accepts us. The healthy,
biblical fear of God is conspicuous by its absence. What
we want to know is not, “How can I please God?” but,
“How can God please me, make my life radiantly happy,
and give me a bundle of fulfilled contentment?” We are
not asking theocentric questions anymore, but
anthropocentric questions. Man and his happiness are the
center, not God and His righteousness. And things will
not improve unless the holy law of God is proclaimed as
that which must be satisfied and acknowledged.
In the second place, even where the gospel is
acknowledged, it has really ceased to hold first place.
We have seen that the gospel is historical. It has no
subjective element. Yet it has existential implications. It
bears subjective fruit. When proclaimed and believed, it
changes lives-producing love, joy, peace, goodness,
temperance and humility in the hearts of men and
women. The experience it brings to believers is real and
vital. But we must ever remember that the biblical order
and perspective is the historical over the existential –
i.e.:
Historical
——————-
Existential
This means that the for us aspect of grace must
always stand above the in us aspect. This is not a matter
of crying down the necessity of genuine Christian
experience. It merely affirms that experience can only be
truly possessed and enjoyed when it is where it should
be. Jesus warned the disciples of this when they returned
from a successful missionary excursion. They were
rejoicing in the fact that they had had a glorious
experience working in Christ’s name-preaching, casting
out demons, healing, etc. But Jesus said, “Nevertheless
do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you;
but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” Luke
10:20, R.S.V.
But the history of the church has demonstrated that
the cursed tendency of human nature is to reverse the
order until the existential is elevated above the historical.
(Or to say it another way, the in you is elevated above
the for you.) When the historical element of Christianity
is eclipsed, the essential genius of the Christian message
is lost, and Christianity is reduced to everything else in
the world that offers you a glorious experience. And
when religious experience itself is preached as the
gospel, it is the very antichrist itself. For when the
existential is placed above the historical, the divine order
is reversed. This really means that man is placed above
God.
It is an interesting (and alarming) fact that the
elevation of the existential above the historical has taken
place in both the liberal and conservative wings of the
current religious scene. In the liberal wing man and his
experience are elevated to an unbiblical prominence via
such teachings as “encounter theology” (Brunner),
“demythologizing” (Bultmann), and the denial of
“propositional revelation” (Barth and others). All this
means is that man and his experience (insight, hunch,
intuition) are placed above God, His Word and His
gospel. Instead of man being the creature to be molded
into God’s image, man assumes the role of molding God
and His Word into his image.
But when we look into the conservative wing of
the church – into conservative Romanism,
Pentecostalism or evangelicalism – we see that in
principle the same thing has taken place. Here the
dominating motif is the centrality of religious
experience.3 In classical Romanism this is seen in the
doctrine of gratia infusa – the concept of justification by
infused grace (i.e., the changed life). In Pentecostalism it
is seen in preoccupation with the Holy Spirit and the
inner experience of Spirit possession. In much
evangelicalism it is seen in salvation by the inward
experience of new birth, the “gospel of the changed life,”
the witness to the Spirit-filled life of the believer, or the
glories and wonders of selfcrucifixion.4 There is in all
this a “believer centeredness” that is contrary to the
Bible. It is the same old error of placing the existential
over the historical, and in the final analysis it means that
man stands in the place of God. That this man is a
religious man does not alter the crime, for after all, man’s
chief sin is in the religious sin.
Many Antichrists
The apostle John says that there are many
antichrists (1 John 2:18). That is, there are many ways of
substituting man and his experience in the place of Christ
and His unique saving experience. We will list some of
these antichrist substitutions:
The regeneration of the believer in the place of the
imputed righteousness of Christ.
The work of the Third Person of the Trinity in the
place of the Second Person.
Sanctification in the place of justification.
The personal righteousness of the believer in the
place of the vicarious righteousness of Christ.
Faith in the place of the meritorious obedience of
Christ.
Our self-crucifixion in the place of His
crucifixion.
Our new life in the place of His sinless life.
Our experience in the center in the place of His.
Our love for God in the place of His love for us.
Our surrender instead of Christ’s.
Our victorious life in the place of His.
Our attainment instead of His atonement.
Our baptism in water in the place of His baptism
in blood.
Our fellowship with Christ as the ground of hope
instead of God’s fellowship with Christ.
Our faith union with Him as the basis of salvation
instead of His union with the Father on our behalf.
Our election in the place of His election.
The church (the body) in the place of Christ (the
Head).
We say again, The diabolical trick of antichrist is
not to place the bad in the room of the good, but the
good in the room of the glorious work of Jesus Christ.
For none could deny that new birth, changed life,
self-crucifixion, etc., are good-and so necessary that no
one will be saved without such experiences. But when
these things are preached as the gospel or hold the place
in our thinking and witnessing that should belong to the
gospel alone, then we have prostituted Christian
experience. We have used God’s gifts to rob Him of His
glory. A candle may be of some use to give light in a
dark room, but before the sun we put that candle away.
Its light will only cause a shadow when put up before the
light of the sun.
Putting experience in the room of the gospel is not
like stealing a few gems from the royal crown. He who
does this is guilty of stealing the crown itself and placing
it upon his own head. This is the deed and work of
antichrist. It is the sin of religious man. Unless we take
the biblical warnings with radical seriousness and
examine our own hearts and house, we too will be found
to be part of antichrist’s conspiracy. Unless this
generation of the evangelical church takes part in a great
gospel renaissance, we shall fulfill prophecy by
becoming “an image to the beast” (Rev. 13:11-15). “He
that has ears to hear, let him hear.”
The Australian Forum (G.J.P. & R.D.B.)
The material in this article it also available on cassette
tape: GS-7, “Antichrist Today” (suggested donation,
$2.00). This is the last tape in a set of seven cassettes
reproduced from the Australian Forum’s “Gospel
Substitutes” Seminar (Winter 1974). The entire set of
seven cassettes is now available (suggested donation,
$14.00). Order from Present Truth.
2 See our brochures, The Protestant Era at an End! and
Protestant Revisalism, Pentecostalisrn and the Drift
Back to Rome.
3 See Present Truth, Feb., 1974, “The current Religious
Scene.”
4 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, “The Evangelical’s Substitute,”
Present Truth, Nov., 1974, pp.6-12.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern”][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”62px”][/vc_column][/vc_row]