One of the most memorable conversations I ever had during my theological edu­cation was with a senior minister of the church, who was dis­cussing the issue of church union with me. I remember in the middle of this intense discussion, he stopped, looked me in the eye, and then said quite unexpectedly, "Peter, don't ever forget that church union was not about property and dwindling church numbers. It wasn't. It was ultimately concerned with what peo­ple believed about God and particularly the person of Christ."

I was a little unnerved by this comment. It seemed to come from left out­field. I nodded dutifully and asked if he could help me to understand what he meant.

So he proceeded to tell me how in the early 1930s he had studied at the Divinity School in Sydney University under the renowned Presbyterian theol­ogy professor, Dr Samuel Angus. Angus was a world-acclaimed scholar who had gained a PhD from Princeton Seminary and also held three honorary doctorates from universities in the United Kingdom and Europe. He had published many well-known books including The Mystery Religions and Christianity, Christianity and Dogma and Man and the New Order.

Angus was a radical theologian who denied the historical truth of the virgin birth, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and the physical resurrection of our Lord. However, he was also gifted in establish­ing strong bonds with his students. My colleague said to me, "Angus was well-to-do. He had a very impressive car that had running-boards and white-rimmed tyres. We admired it. He would take some of us out for a drive in it and then invite us to dinner afterwards. We all thought he was an absolutely tremendous fellow. He had the knack of making you feel special. He certainly had that effect on me."

It seems that Dr Angus also cast a spell over large numbers of other students. Many of them believed whatever he told them. In the case of my col­league, he believed that Jesus could not possibly be God; He was only a man. Interestingly, this is what Angus had taught him. He told me that when he submitted his exit thesis to his Presbytery, it was rejected on the grounds that it challenged the deity of Christ. He went and told Dr Angus, who offered to help him rewrite it so that it would be acceptable, even though the underlying views had not changed.

The revised thesis was accepted by the Presbytery and my friend was duly ordained. He told me that he maintained his views for several decades, all the while serving as a Presbyterian min­ister. It was not until later in his life that he realised that he had been danger­ously misled, and returned to an orthodox position.

My colleague's experience in dealing with Dr Angus gives a special poignancy to John's statement in 1 John 2:18, "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." According to the apostle John, the spirit of antichrist is alive and well in the church of every age. John's reference to the "last hour" is a reminder that the spirit of antichrist is a phenomenon that Christians will experience from the first century AD until the sec­ond coming of Christ.

Interestingly, John refers to this spir­itual danger as "the spirit of antichrist". It is a term that is peculiar to him, although other Bible writers express the same idea, using slightly different terminology. For instance, the apostle Paul refers to "the man of lawlessness" (2 Thess. 2:3) and the apostle Peter speaks of "false teachers and scoffers" (2 Pet. 2:1, 3:3).

I suppose we should not be surprised that throughout various ages of the church, Christians have understood the term "antichrist" in slightly different ways. In the early church, which experienced a great deal of Jewish opposition, there were many who believed that antichrist would be Jewish and have extraordinary powers.

This view was somewhat modified in the Middle Ages when people were attracted to the idea that antichrist would be a great world figure not necessarily Jewish who would establish himself through impressive claims, miraculous signs and then assume con­trol of the church.

Then, during the Reformation, Protestants became convinced that antichrist was none other than the Pope himself because the bishop of Rome arose from within the church and tried to usurp the place reserved for Christ alone. While each of these views is perfectly understandable, it's hard to say which one is right. Nevertheless, we can say that antichrist seems to be one or a series of people who make impressive claims and cultivate a large following within the church, but whose real aim is to destroy it.

According to John and other New Testament writers, antichrist was already at work in the early church. Perhaps the most significant feature of antichrist that John mentions is the fact that he is "the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ". John goes on to say "such a man is the antichrist — he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also".

John's comments also suggest that regardless of the period in church his­tory in which he appears, the aim of antichrist is to introduce ideas and doc­trines that undermine our belief that Jesus is God's divinely appointed Son and Messiah. This explains why the major theological struggles throughout the history of the church have focused on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Antichrist's strategy is to introduce another Jesus and a different gospel to that of the apostles. As Paul reminds us, Christians are easily beguiled and will often put up with dangerous substitutes (2 Cor. 11:3, 4).

So how does antichrist introduce another Jesus and a different gospel? He uses a variety of methods, but his first step is to predispose our hearts to look for someone other than the divine redeemer of the gospel. His strategy focuses on the need to make us think that all is well, or at least, that life, if not perfect, is at least tolerable. This is the illusion that he must first create in presenting "another Jesus". If we are satisfied with ourselves, or at least believe that life is tolerable, then we really have no need of a saviour. And, of course, if we have no need of a savior, then we are hardly likely to seek one. And, if we do not seek one, then we will most certainly not find one. So this is where antichrist begins — by confound­ing us about the nature of sin.

It may seem strange to us that this is where antichrist first concentrates his attack, but as Luther says, if we make a mistake with respect to the limits of our moral and spiritual capacity, we will go wrong everywhere else.

As he reminds Erasmus,

For as long as they do not know the limits of their ability, they will not know what they should do; and as long as they do not know what they should do, they cannot repent when they err; and impenitence is the unpar­donable sin! ... For if I am ignorant of the nature, extent and limits of what I can and must do with reference to God, I shall be equally ignorant and uncertain of the nature, extent and limits of what God can and will do for me.

This explains why antichrist's first step in leading us to embrace "another Jesus" is to confound us about the nature and seriousness of our sin.

From all accounts, it seems that antichrist's strategy appears to be working well throughout modern evangelicalism. David Wells has reminded us that one of the reasons why evangelicals no longer take God and His gospel seriously is that surveys reveal that only 17% of them think of sin as an offence against God and a matter that must be addressed before God's throne of judgment. Sin is seen purely in horizontal terms and its divine dimension remains unacknowledged.

Celebrity preachers such as Robert Schuller have said that we must rid the Christian church of the categories of sin and justification and replace them with shame and self-esteem. According to Schuller, "a person is in hell when he has lost his self-esteem."

Joel Osteen, pastor of America's largest mega-church — Lakewood in Houston — has said that God's judgment was "for a time ago". "I don't have it in my heart to condemn people," he said. "I'm there to encourage them. I see myself more as a coach, as a motivator to help them experience the life God has for us." He goes on to say, "Our faith is made effectual when we acknowledge everything good in us. Think about this: Our faith is not effective when we acknowledge all our hurts and pains. It's not effective when we stay focused on our shortcomings and our weaknesses. Our faith is most effective when we acknowledge the good things that are in us." One wonders how Osteen can proclaim Christ as the Saviour of sinners when he has effectively defined sin out of existence. The answer is that the Jesus whom Osteen proclaims is "another Jesus."

The best way to protect ourselves against the false gospel of antichrist is to analyse the spiritual predicament in which we stand with God. Anselm, one of the leading theologians during the Middle Ages, addressed this issue in his classic work, Cur Deus Homo (or Why God Became Man). To fully understand our need of a saviour, he says "we must ask on what basis God forgives sin. And so that that we may do this more clearly, we must first see what 'sin' means, and what 'satisfaction for sin' means."

Anselm then proceeds by explaining that every person owes a debt to God of unqualified love and obedience:

Every desire and every attitude of a created being who possesses reason ought to be subject to the will of God. This is the debt which angels and human beings owe to God. No one sins if he pays this debt; everyone who does not pay it sins ... This is the only and entire honour which we owe to God, and which God requires from us ... Anyone who does not give this honour to God takes away from God what belongs to Him and dishonours Him: and this is sin.

On top of this, as long as the sinner does not repay what he has stolen, he remains at fault. And it is not enough to return what was taken away. Because of the insult committed against God, he must give back more than he has taken away ... So then, everyone who sins must repay to God the honour he has taken away; and this is the satisfaction that every sinner ought to make to God.Chapters 11-13, 15

The genius of Anselm is that he cor­rectly defines the spiritual crisis in which sinners find themselves. And, as they say, correctly identifying the problem is the essential first step towards finding the right solution. If we are going to resist the spirit of antichrist in our own generation, it will not be done by the faulty diagnoses offered by celebrity preachers. Discovering the Christ we really need will only occur when the Holy Spirit reveals to us the true dimensions of the nature and power of our sin. That's why the superficial diagnoses of the Christian self-help and prosperity movement play into the hands of antichrist and make the true Jesus more inaccessible than ever.