The lawless antichrists

The mountain of Sinai is the law giving place, the gap between men and God, whereas the mountain of Zion (referenced in that verse) is the place of the fulfilled law and of the freedom from all enemies, in the case of Christ even of death and sin, where the king rules with his friends (where David settled and ruled his kingdom). Both are spiritual entities, representing spritiual realities, more than anything. Paul referenced that in Hebrews 12, where he shows the spiritual significance of the law - the be the counter-type and counter-position of the gospel state. There is a big but, though


Luther generally put too big of a gap between the gospel and the law (Zion and Sinai), forgetting that one was supposed to lead to the other. What he said was simply "okay the law is death, doesnt give lfe, doesnt perfect, the gospel does all that, therefore the law is bad and to be handled with extreme caution". I would to a point agree with the catholics that he suffered from hypersensitive conscience in regard to personal holiness and the law actually caused him physical pain. While Luther was a monk, the law produced terrors in him (him not being a hypocrite), and with the demands of monasticism's other law, he had to see to getting out of it before it was too late.



But a correct understanding of the law includes its new role in the life of the believer, a safeguard against sin and despair and an enjoyment of the holiness, perfection and moral superiority of God. (As all of psalm 119 attests)



The gnostics had almost no conscience and the law caused the opposite of grace - mellowed Luther - not an attempt to escape it or wash it away with the gospel, but the desire to replace it (see Psalm 119:126+Matthew 15:3;  Daniel 7:25), with a law they easily fulfill every day. That was the mindset of the egyptian desert satanist fathers. In being self-righteous they had to come up with a lifestyle that would both have external holiness and allow them to puff up in their minds. The atrocity of prideful humility that was covered with a self constructed and regulated meritocracy, only paying lip service to God. They believed that virtually ALL of their trials and tribulations were caused by demons who came to disturb their peace of mind and contemplation. This is an extremely gnostic teaching that comes from the concept of the "immovable race" of gnostic ascetic overcomers, who remain untouched by the movements and seductions of the archons. (that is the cause of Luther's constant association of the law with Satan, baggage from monasticism), which even Luther and Brenz and others erroneously kept in some measure  in the protestant churches.
    


  The truth here is that those demons were no demons but the dying pangs of their conscience, which they destroyed with the help of the true demons within them. (1 Tim 4:1-4). Cleaning themselves on the outside, they died a second time, went beyond death, to hell, on the inside (Luke 11:39; Titus 1:15). Wylie describes something similar (total obedience to the superiors and monasticism in jesuitism, derived from egyptian cenobitism) as "the second fall" in his chapter on jesuitism in the protestant history book. I would agree as this process destroyed the last leftovers of light and divine reason in the human being. A second fruit - not of knowing good and evil, but this time destroying the knowledge of good and evil. This is to know "the depths of Satan", becoming a hellish, remorseless puppet of the evil one.



Now, the gnostics (as the manichaeans) had two castes or two groups within their sects - the ascetics and the libertines/hedonists. Both were antinomian (lawless), but in different respects. The first were the priesthood who punished their flesh, as attacked by "demons" (archons in their case) and persevered in prayer and set their own law. The second were the laity, who were permitted a lot or everything. This distinction is now preserved in the two types of antichrists - the monk superiors (jesuits) and the libertine secret societies, like freemasonry. The second are constantly exposed, along with fringe, layman, lesbian/hippy gnosticism, and put under the light as the "enemy" of the church, playing on their radically different lifestyle and social background. There is no problem to admit the antiquity of freemasonry, illuminism etc in the occultism and libertine gnosticism of the past, but the monks have to conceal their gnostic past, or their common origin will be revealed.


Optional reading, we have discussed this before:


[ Thats why Cyril of Alexandria, Dioscorus and his right hand Shenoute went on a little murdering spree in Egypt after they got the books of the egyptian pagan monks and gnostics. We talked how a gnostic core had formed within the system and the TRUE fathers and mothers of the church had to be taken care of . . . . . .Simple mafia cleanup. There was a massive purge of gnostics and origenists and pagans in the early catholic church, Satan had to cover his tracks, as the dogma of "mother of God" was being proclaimed, the pagans and gnostics would have jeopardized the credibility of the church as orthodox, AS THEY WOULD JOIN IT OPENLY or EXPOSE IT'S SYNCRETISM. This is also the reason the Catholic church in her fake writings about bogomils and cathars hardly mentions (as far as i know) Sophia, because if they wrote true gnostic material as bogomil's works their own gnosticism (Mariology) would be exposed.]




In the bible God's law, glory etc was constantly replaced by the godless (see what the pharisees did with the temple, the law etc) and I believe that replacing would fit the definition of antinomian/lawless, if it is already accepted that the idolator who has SUBSTITUTED God with an idol  is to be called "godless", even if he has a "god". So these have their law and are "lawless", for breaking the spiritual commandments of God.


The replacement may consist in downgrading/ pulling down of divine things to human/external level. 

Psalm 74:7

They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground.

Thats why there is no problem with the pope being the "lawless one", even if he claims to perform the law of God, he never exhibits the spiritual (Romans 7) function and side of the law, but conceals it under his carnal and expanded law.  And he is also antichrist for the below reason given:




Being lawless means also denying the leading role of law, the role of the schoolmaster (Gal 3) . Therefore to be lawless means to be antichrist, since Christ was incarnated with the purpose of fulfilling the law (Romans 8:3-4). Thats why John in his epistles talks about both as being linked.

1 John 4:3
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.

If the law is not what the bible says, but a humanly surmountable law, there is no need for Christ to be incarnate. The gnostic disregarded the law completely, but were for the most part ascetics, fearing "pollution" from the archons and so in a sense had their own law in the systems of their asceticism.




THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST IS WITHIN MONASTICISM AND WILL WORSHIP. THIS IS THE SPIRIT WHO WANTS TO "ASCEND" WITHOUT THE FLESH OF CHRIST:

They said of Abba Macarius the Great that he became, as it is written, A GOD UPON EARTH,

  "HE IS A PRESENCE OF GOD HERE ON EARTH..."

        "DOBRY IS A SPARK OF GOD'S FLESH........."

 "HE MIGHT BE THE HOLY FATHER...."

http://jesus-partisans-balkans.blogspot.bg/2015/03/satans-sisyphus-arbeit-macht-nicht-frei.html