# Poll - Is the Pope the Antichrist?



## TylerRay

I am curious how many PB users hold to the classic Reformed view that the Pope is the Antichrist, the Man of Sin. Of course by "classic Reformed view," I do NOT mean that if you do not hold to this view that you are not Reformed. I simply mean that it used to be the universal Reformed view, as is shown in the Confessional documents of the Reformed Churches, and the writings of the Reformers and Puritans.



> There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: *nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.*
> -WCF(1646) 25.6





> The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; *neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.*
> -2nd LBCF 26.4





> And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and *destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist;* to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.
> -Belgic Confession 36, Paragraph 5





> There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; *nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of Iperdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.*
> -Savoy Declaration 26.4





> Then, not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous predecessour of your HIGHNESSE did leave it; Nay, to goe forward with the confidence and resolution of a man in maintaining the trueth of Christ, and propagating it farre and neere, is that which hath so bound and firmely knit the hearts of all your MAJESTIES loyall and Religious people unto you, that your very Name is precious among them, their eye doeth behold you with comfort, and they blesse you in their hearts, as that sanctified person, who under GOD, is the immediate authour of their true happinesse. And this their contentment doeth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe that the zeale of your Majestie towards the house of GOD, doth not slacke or goe backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting it selfe abroad in the furthest parts of Christendome, by writing in defence of the Trueth, *(which hath given such a blow unto that man of Sinne, as will not be healed)* and every day at home, by Religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of GOD, by hearing the word preached, by cherishing the teachers therof, by caring for the Church as a most tender and loving nourcing Father.
> -From the original preface to the KJV


----------



## dudley

I believe the pope is the antichrist and the papacy is an antichrist institution.


----------



## AThornquist

Personally, I think dogmatically claiming that he is _the_ Antichrist actually detracts from exposing his darkness since there isn't really a way to prove the claim, whereas he can be proved to be _an_ Antichrist. It wouldn't surprise me if he were the Antichrist, but I think it would be better for me to hold to what I can at least know for sure.


----------



## J. Williams

Hendriksen's commentary on Thessalonians is a great resource on this very question.


----------



## Herald

I believe the divines had ample proof to consider the pope to be "that antichrist." The greatest outside threat to the Church during their time was Rome. There is no other major religion today that confers so much power in one man as the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore the papacy still fits that definition.


----------



## lynnie

Doesn't Mohammed qualify? If there is a final one man antichrist/man of lawlessness I'd expect him to be a Muslim. ( the way things are going, the RCCs and Muslims may form an alliance, with Mary being venerated in the mix)


----------



## SolaSaint

I have a very old book that was my Grandpa's. It was probably written over 110 years ago. It's sort of like a Systematic Theology and it refers to the Pope as being the anit-Christ throughout it's pages. If feel whoever wrote that book was convinced of it. I'll try to dig it up and let you all know the title and author.


----------



## TylerRay

J. Williams said:


> Hendriksen's commentary on Thessalonians is a great resource on this very question.



What is his position?


----------



## Peairtach

Antichrist means "in the place of Christ" as much as "against Christ".

Patrick Fairbairn shows in his "The Interpretation of Prophecy" why it is a term fitting for the Papacy - as _the_ "Big Daddy" Antichrist - as it was for Christian Gnostics in the Apostle John's day.

Believing that the Papacy is the Antichrist doesn't imply some kind of simplistic, wide-eyed, visceral and vicious anti-Romanism, nor does it comment upon whether one believes Rome to be in some sense part of the Visible Church, or whether one believes that there are any true believers in the Roman Church.


----------



## jgilberAZ

I believe the beast religion is Islam, and The Antichrist will be their long-awaited savior, the Mahdi.

The Pope is a type of Antichrist, but not THE Antichrist.


----------



## BibleCyst

Jeff, that's a very interesting thought! I can't say I've ever thought about a possible connection between Islam, the Mahdi, and the Antichrist.

I vote in the affirmative. Normally, I strongly dislike speaking in absolutes when it comes to things in the book of Revelation. In this case, I'm closer to "the Pope is THE Antichrist," than I am "the Pope is AN Antichrist" (though, he most certainly at least AN Antichrist). As Bill pointed out, the Pope still very much fits the "job description." He fits it too well. I'm not willing to say 100% that the Pope is THE Antichrist, but more like "the Pope is THE Antichrist until I'm proven wrong."


----------



## Loopie

Just a question for my own clarification. When people argue that the Pope is THE Antichrist, are they referring to the 'office' of Pope, or the person who happens to be the Pope at the time? I assume that everyone is referring to the office, since obviously many Popes have come and gone since the office was created.


----------



## baron

Are not the scriptures in 1 and 2 John that deal with the antichrist, deny that Christ came in the flesh? Has the Pope denied that Christ came in the flesh?


----------



## TylerRay

Loopie said:


> Just a question for my own clarification. When people argue that the Pope is THE Antichrist, are they referring to the 'office' of Pope, or the person who happens to be the Pope at the time? I assume that everyone is referring to the office, since obviously many Popes have come and gone since the office was created.



To put it simply, it's the office. But in so much as whoever happens to be Pope fills that office, he is the Antichrist.


----------



## jgilberAZ

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
(1 John 2:22 ESV)

This does not describe Catholicism.

It does describe Islam, however.

This is one of the inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock:

God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son.


----------



## OPC'n

maybe idk very much about the Catholic religion, but I voted he's not the AntiChrist bc of verse 1John 2:22 "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son". I don't think the Pope denies Jesus is the Christ. This fits more in with the Mormons and Jehovah Witness ppl i think.


----------



## OPC'n

jgilberAZ said:


> Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
> (1 John 2:22 ESV)
> 
> This does not describe Catholicism.
> 
> It does describe Islam, however.
> 
> This is one of the inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock:
> 
> God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son.



Opps! guess I should have read all the comments first


----------



## JennyG

SolaSaint said:


> I have a very old book that was my Grandpa's. It was probably written over 110 years ago. It's sort of like a Systematic Theology and it refers to the Pope as being the anit-Christ throughout it's pages. If feel whoever wrote that book was convinced of it. I'll try to dig it up and let you all know the title and author.


could it have been this one, Romanism and the Reformation by H Grattan Guiness?
Perhaps it's not quite a "Systematic Theology" but Grattan Guinness was formidably learned, and definitely convinced that (not the pope but) the papacy is the Antichrist. It must have been the most common position among Protestant writers of that generation, I think.


----------



## Peairtach

*John*


> Are not the scriptures in 1 and 2 John that deal with the antichrist, deny that Christ came in the flesh? Has the Pope denied that Christ came in the flesh?



This was a manifestation of _an_ antichrist in John's day called Christian Gnosticism. Christian Gnosticism isn't the only antichrist or type of antichrist.

Any false system that retains the name and trappings of Christianity while setting up a false Christ in the place of Christ is an antichristian e.g. Liberal Theology, Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy (?), Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, etc.

The false Christ (antichrist) of Liberal Theology takes many forms. The antichrist (or Antichrist) of Romanism is the Papacy.

E.g. Atheism, Communism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc, don't even claim to be Christian, so are not antichrists, but just plain false religions or philosophies.

See the passage in the above book by Fairbairn, which is online.

It's not a subject I speak about much, as it is liable to misunderstanding without a great degree of explanation. It's probably not effective as an opener in the evangelisation of Roman Catholics, although I'm prepared to be surprised.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Wm. Hendriksen's view was, in essence, that there were many antichrists (even in John's day) and up through the church age, but there is a final one coming – also named (in 2 Thess 2) the man of sin (or lawlessness) – who shall be manifest at the end of the age. He has quite a few pages devoted to this topic in his commentary on Thessalonians (in 2 Thess 2:3,4), Timothy, and Titus.

It was for a reason that the American revision of the WCF, finalized in 1936 (by the Committee on the Constitution, consisting of Stonehouse, Machen, and Thompson), and was recommended by said committee at the Second GA that the Westminster Standards be adopted "in the form which they possessed" before the revisions of 1903*, with the exceptions of chapter 25.6 which had removed the reference of the pope as antichrist, and 22.3 which had removed the forbidding the refusal of a lawful oath. *(There were other changes prior to 1903 – made in 1788 – which were retained.)

I don't have access to the minutes of that "recent" committee, and don't know their reasoning for retaining these two removals, but I see the wisdom in them, and in particular the one re the pope. If we are bound, with our godly older brethren, to seeing only the pope and papacy as the antichrist and man of sin, we will be blinded to discern who this person really is when he appears, and that could be a very dangerous error.

I don't wish to duel with my godly brethren holding to the ancient form as to the rightness or wrongness of our OPC / PCA form of the Standards, I'm just stating the way it is, and why we will keep it that way.


----------



## Peairtach

> I don't have access to the minutes of that "recent" committee, and don't know their reasoning for retaining these two removals, but I see the wisdom in them, and in particular the one re the pope. If we are bound, with our godly older brethren, to seeing only the pope and papacy as the antichrist and man of sin, we will be blinded to discern who this person really is when he appears, and that could be a very dangerous error.
> 
> I don't wish to duel with my godly brethren holding to the ancient form as to the rightness or wrongness of our OPC / PCA form of the Standards, I'm just stating the way it is, and why we will keep it that way.



Well this is the case, Steve. I wouldn't want to duel (again?) about this subject on the PB.

It's one of those tricky eschatalogical questions.

If the old view of the Pope being _the _ Antichrist, is correct, holding to the original version of the WCF would be right on message.

But if not, and it is some future personage or line of personages, then it wouldn't be on message. 

But the reality is that future personages or lines of personages can be identified, as they appear, since believing that the Pope is the Antichrist, doesn't exclude belief in other antichrists, some of them future, maybe almost as major as the Papacy.


----------



## jwithnell

In his series on Revelation Sinclair Ferguson, if my memory is correct, describes the Antichrist as anything that stands against Christ and His kingdom, the presence of which has been here since Jesus was born and will remain until His triumphant return. I don't know if doctor Ferguson said this, or if it was an extension in my own thinking about the sermon, but it seems that if we put the focus on a specific being as Antichrist, we will miss the far more subtle and potentially more dangerous beings and teachings.

I realize that many of the Puritans saw the pope as the Antichrist, but given their proximity to the Reformation and to the sometimes devastating effects on England as the throne switched back and forth between RC and protestant, it's easy to understand how the pope would appear to be the biggest, baddest boy on the block.


----------



## Peairtach

> In his series on Revelation Sinclair Ferguson, if my memory is correct, describes the Antichrist as anything that stands against Christ and His kingdom,



The problem with this is that it is too general. Pretty much anything that opposes Christ and His Kingdom can be an antichrist. The use of the term in the Bible seems to be more specific than that.

I suppose the main thing is that enemies of Christ and His Church are recognised and responded to, whether they are antichrists (e.g. the Christ of Liberal Theology), the Antichrist (e.g. the Papacy or some future personage), or of the common or garden type of enemy (e.g. Communism, Atheism, Buddhism, etc), or however you choose to classify them, or not.



> the presence of which has been here since Jesus was born and will remain until His triumphant return.



Dr Ferguson sounds like he is amil rather than postmil; one of those tricky eschatalogical debates.



> it's easy to understand how the pope would appear to be the biggest, baddest boy on the block.



Whoever one believes _the_ Antichrist to be, the Antichrist, whoever he may be, is the Big Daddy of all lesser antichrists.


----------



## Jeremy123

This is my first post and I am surprised that no one post I have yet seen, has mentioned that there are two meanings to the word, _*anti*_. 
1. First it means to go in a contra direction, i.e., anti-clockwise rather than clockwise and, 
2. Secondly, _*anti*_ also means _"in place of"_. Now for the interesting bit; all popes by virtue of just one of their many titles i.e., "The vicar of Christ" assume the roll of the Holy Spirit (who IS the only Vicar of Christ). And this makes them truly antichrist![/SIZE]
Jeremy123[/SIZE]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rich, BB Warfield takes just this position – that the antichrist in John's epistles (and the rest of Scripture) is to be understood generally, as in the continuing _spirit_ of antichrist in false teachers and teaching. And it is true as J. says, we can be on the lookout for a specific figure – a person – and miss the flood of antichrist teaching and teachers inundating the church.

Still and all, here in the U.S. and according to the WCF held by a good number of the churches, we have warrant, both confessionally and Scripturally, to look for a worse than the pope, who might make the bloodthirstiest of them look like a choirboy.

P.S. Welcome to PB Jeremy!


----------



## Peairtach

Jeremy123 said:


> This is my first post and I am surprised that no one post I have yet seen, has mentioned that there are two meanings to the word, _*anti*_.
> 1. First it means to go in a contra direction, i.e., anti-clockwise rather than clockwise and,
> 2. Secondly, _*anti*_ also means _"in place of"_. Now for the interesting bit; all popes by virtue of just one of their many titles i.e., "The vicar of Christ" assume the roll of the Holy Spirit (who IS the only Vicar of Christ). And this makes them truly antichrist![/SIZE]
> Jeremy123[/SIZE]



Welcome to the PB, Jeremy.  No need to "shout"; we get the message.


----------



## OPC'n

Peairtach said:


> Jeremy123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my first post and I am surprised that no one post I have yet seen, has mentioned that there are two meanings to the word, _*anti*_.
> 1. First it means to go in a contra direction, i.e., anti-clockwise rather than clockwise and,
> 2. Secondly, _*anti*_ also means _"in place of"_. Now for the interesting bit; all popes by virtue of just one of their many titles i.e., "The vicar of Christ" assume the roll of the Holy Spirit (who IS the only Vicar of Christ). And this makes them truly antichrist![/SIZE]
> Jeremy123[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the PB, Jeremy.  No need to "shout"; we get the message.
Click to expand...


I don't think he was shouting since he didn't write in all caps he just has a large font. Maybe he has a hard time seeing what he writes? Idk


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Still and all, here in the U.S. and according to the WCF held by a good number of the churches, we have warrant, both confessionally and Scripturally, to look for a worse than the pope, who might make the bloodthirstiest of them look like a choirboy.



I never like contradicting you, Steve, but the removal of a proposition from a confession does not necessarily mean that the confession was deemed false on that point; it simply means that the adopting body felt it necessary to allow for other views. The removal therefore does not provide "warrant" to look for another manifestation.

In response to the thread, the statement in the Confession is in the context of ecclesiology, not eschatology. Even if one's exegesis of 2 Thess. 2 warranted the appearance of the man of sin at the end of this present era (which I cannot see to be possible from whatever angle one views the text), it would not negate the statement of the Confession while the Pope of Rome continues to exalt himself as head of the church. As a point of *application*, the demonstrative, "that," identifies the assumption of the papacy as being of the same nature as the assumption included in the biblical description of the man of sin. I find it hard to believe that any "reformed" person -- reformed from Romanism and Popery, that is -- would or could object to this identification. Even if one could object to it, it would still be true that there has been nothing in the history of the church like the Papacy which fulfils the attributes of the man of sin. What exists, the Papacy, has more probability than something which does not exist, a supposed future man of sin.


----------



## Gloria Dei

Yes; I do hold that the pope is _the_ Antichrist. As the note in the Geneva Bible says for Revelation 17:4 in regard to "the woman[...]araied in purple & skarlat": "This woman is the Anti-Christ, that is, the Pope with the whole bodi of his filthie creatures, as is expounded, vers. 18, whose beautie onely standeth in outwarde pompe & impudencie and craft like a trumpet."


----------



## Peairtach

*Steve*


> Still and all, here in the U.S. and according to the WCF held by a good number of the churches, we have warrant, both confessionally and Scripturally, to look for a worse than the pope, who might make the bloodthirstiest of them look like a choirboy.



There have been bloodthirsty people in history, like Nero and Stalin and Hitler, and some of the line of Popes have been involved in that too, and maybe there will be such people or such a person at the end of history as well.

But it is _soul-killing_ on a large scale, by means of its _Christian_ lies and its great longevity, that the Papacy is renowned for.


----------



## Peairtach

OPC'n said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my first post and I am surprised that no one post I have yet seen, has mentioned that there are two meanings to the word, _*anti*_.
> 1. First it means to go in a contra direction, i.e., anti-clockwise rather than clockwise and,
> 2. Secondly, _*anti*_ also means _"in place of"_. Now for the interesting bit; all popes by virtue of just one of their many titles i.e., "The vicar of Christ" assume the roll of the Holy Spirit (who IS the only Vicar of Christ). And this makes them truly antichrist![/SIZE]
> Jeremy123[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the PB, Jeremy.  No need to "shout"; we get the message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he was shouting since he didn't write in all caps he just has a large font. Maybe he has a hard time seeing what he writes? Idk
Click to expand...


My apologies if that is the case, Jeremy.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Nor do I like contradicting you, Matthew; you, like myself, are as a bulldog with a bone – tenacious – in debate! Plus, you are more learned than I. I think your objection is well-placed in denying me the word "warrant", insofar as the American 1936 WCF is concerned, as warrant denotes authorization or sanction. I yield on that point. As you indicate, it but gives me liberty (allows me) the view I hold. However – and please let's not debate it here! – _Scripture_ gives me warrant for my view.

I am really so glad to see you up and about again! Praise to our God! Do I read your signature correctly; you are pastoring again, but in a cooler climate – in Victoria? That must have been a Herculean feat, the move, especially with all your books.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am really so glad to see you up and about again! Praise to our God! Do I read your signature correctly;[/COLOR] you are pastoring again, but in a cooler climate – in Victoria? That must have been a Herculean feat, the move, especially with all your books.



Steve, I'm mostly just resting here; there is no pastoral charge; and there is already a pastor active in the broader area. But there does seem to be alot of interest in learning the reformed faith, so I'm not left wondering what to do. Yes, moving was quite a task, but I'm thankful everything went as smoothly as it did. The Lord is our help indeed! Thankyou and everyone else for being such an encouragement. Blessings!


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

jgilberAZ said:


> Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
> (1 John 2:22 ESV)
> This does not describe Catholicism.





OPC'n said:


> maybe idk very much about the Catholic religion, but I voted he's not the AntiChrist bc of verse 1John 2:22 "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son". I don't think the Pope denies Jesus is the Christ. This fits more in with the Mormons and Jehovah Witness ppl i think.



αντί + Χριστός is translated anti+Christ 
αντί carries the weight of "In the place of" as much as "over and against"

The Papacy is certainly qualified as antichrist. (in-the-place of & therefore over & against Christ)

The Pope takes the following titles to himself
1. "The Head of the Church" & "The visible representation of Christ on earth" <- Last time I checked these were titles exclusive of the true Christ.
2. "The Holy Father" & "The MOST Holy Father" <- God the Fathers Titles.
3. "Vicarius Filii Dei" or "Vicar of the Son of God" or the one who comes in the place of the Son of God. <- Is this not the explicit title of the Holy Spirit?

Does one NOT deny the Father & the Son when taking not only their names and positions and authority but the Holy Spirits as well?

Furthermore, the papacy rose up from am illegitimate throne within the visible church.

Although there be and have been many anti-christs... none are to the level of coming from within the visible church, then taking the explicit names of the Triune-Persons of the Godhead, making himself the Chief mediator claiming the ability of the absolution of sin (others only by his authority,) and making salvation apart from himself impossible. 

I think the pope wears the badge of antichrist without a doubt.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Joshua said:


> "I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist." - Martin Luther



You have to admire Luther's willingness to say what was on his mind no matter who might be offended. I imagine that if Luther were alive today and active on the Puritan Board, he would keep the moderators pretty busy.


----------



## J. Dean

> Most undoubtedly fitting.
> 
> "_I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist."_ - Martin Luther
> "_There are many that think I am too fierce against Popedom; on the contrary, I complain that I am, alas! too mild; I wish I could breathe out lightning against pope and Popedom, and that every word were a thunderbolt."_ - Martin Luther



Beat me to it, Josh. Luther was the first to utter it, and rightly so.


----------



## Rich Koster

Pilgrim Standard said:


> jgilberAZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
> (1 John 2:22 ESV)
> This does not describe Catholicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe idk very much about the Catholic religion, but I voted he's not the AntiChrist bc of verse 1John 2:22 "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son". I don't think the Pope denies Jesus is the Christ. This fits more in with the Mormons and Jehovah Witness ppl i think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> αντί + Χριστός is translated anti+Christ
> αντί carries the weight of "In the place of" as much as "over and against"
> 
> The Papacy is certainly qualified as antichrist. (in-the-place of & therefore over & against Christ)
> 
> The Pope takes the following titles to himself
> 1. "The Head of the Church" & "The visible representation of Christ on earth" <- Last time I checked these were titles exclusive of the true Christ.
> 2. "The Holy Father" & "The MOST Holy Father" <- God the Fathers Titles.
> 3. "Vicarius Filii Dei" or "Vicar of the Son of God" or the one who comes in the place of the Son of God. <- Is this not the explicit title of the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Does one NOT deny the Father & the Son when taking not only their names and positions and authority but the Holy Spirits as well?
> 
> Furthermore, the papacy rose up from am illegitimate throne within the visible church.
> 
> Although there be and have been many anti-christs... none are to the level of coming from within the visible church, then taking the explicit names of the Triune-Persons of the Godhead, making himself the Chief mediator claiming the ability of the absolution of sin (others only by his authority,) and making salvation apart from himself impossible.
> 
> I think the pope wears the badge of antichrist without a doubt.
Click to expand...


I'll go with the Papacy, unless something more wicked arises, within the Visible Church, that trumps it.


----------



## Peairtach

Pontifex Maximus = Greatest Bridgebuilder =High Priest

Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb 4:14-16)


----------



## Afterthought

Is there a difference between "the" Antichrist and "that" Antichrist? Why/why not? Is there even a biblical basis for talking about "the" Antichrist? (I notice John in 1 John 2 does not say "the" Antichrist, but merely says that they know antichrist is coming, and that even now there are antichrists in the world) Or is this question merely one about how we define terms and/or capture the meaning of what Scripture teaches with extra-biblical language?

Edit: Also, how can the Pope be a "type" of the Antichrist? Isn't one of the qualifications for a type is that it be divinely appointed to represent an antitype? But then how can the Pope be divinely appointed as a type of the Antichrist and the man of sin when the Pope is never mentioned in Scripture?

Edit2: Also, if one took an idealist view of Revelation (or some other view too, perhaps), is there really such a thing in the Bible as an eschatalogical Antichrist or man of sin--that is, an Antichrist or man of sin looming in the future near the end of time? Or perhaps I (or another) should start a different thread on that?


----------



## TylerRay

Afterthought said:


> Is there a difference between "the" Antichrist and "that" Antichrist? Why/why not? Is there even a biblical basis for talking about "the" Antichrist? (I notice John in 1 John 2 does not say "the" Antichrist, but merely says that they know antichrist is coming, and that even now there are antichrists in the world) Or is this question merely one about how we define terms and/or capture the meaning of what Scripture teaches with extra-biblical language?





> "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." - 1 John 2:18





> "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 1:7



The use of the term _that_ Antichrist in the Confession contrasts the _particular_ Antichrist who was foretold to come with the many antichrists who are always in the world. I think it is clear that both of these ideas are present in John's epistles--a "big Antichrist" and little antichrists.

However, in my opinion, the more important passage in this discussion is 2 Thessalonians 2:



> Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.



Now, to show that this man is indeed Antichrist, notice: v4- "he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" - As has been noted "antichrist" doesn't just mean "against Christ," but also "in the place of Christ." The "Man of Sin" and "Son of Perdition" foretold here is clearly antichrist. Not only is he _an_ antichrist, but he serves a role in history that is unequaled by any other antichrist--being linked to a great "falling away" within the Church (v3).

Bear in mind, also, that these things are foretold by Apostles as having special import for the Church--showing that this Antichrist, and the falling away that he will lead the Church into, is far more significant than the cults of the little antichrists of the Apostle's day.


----------



## Afterthought

Thank you for the help! Indeed, I agree that the 2 Thess. passage is more important, and in my mind, more clear. Thank you for connecting "Antichrist" with the "man of sin", for that is an identification I've often wondered about. It seems obvious, but I've wondered why it seemed obvious.


The thing that was throwing me off on the 1 John passage was that it does not say "the" antichrist. It merely says "antichrist" shall come; it's like a name of a person, in that it lacks the definite article. Perhaps I'm making things too difficult though. John says that you know antichrist shall come--there is a something or someone called "antichrist" who shall come--, and that you know even now many antichrists have come--there are many antichrists, and they have already come, but "antichrist" has not come yet. Hence it appears there's a difference between "antichrist" who shall come, and the "many antichrists" who have already come. As for whether "antichrist" is a big one while the "many antichrists" are little, I'm not sure can be determined from the passage. It appears that in order to make that further distinction, one would need to identify the "man of sin" with "antichrist who shall come." Once that is done, we then apply the term "the Antichrist" to that identification, and so get the distinction between "big" and "little".

(I also note that John does not identify when "antichrist" will come, but only that "antichrist" had not come yet at the time of writing; interesting. But I also note that I'm not entirely sure of my above understanding on the passage; it seems John is saying, in the same spirit as in 1 John 4 except without a plural number having already come, that "you heard that antichrist shall come; antichrist has come, many antichrists are around now", with "antichrist" perhaps being understood not individually but rather as comprising the many antichrists who have come)

However, I'm not sure whether the words of the confession are singling out "the Antichrist", but rather, they seem to merely state that the Pope is the particular antichrist that is the man of sin. Though I guess historically, the "man of sin" antichrist would be "the Antichrist" (as it appears from one of the other confessions you quoted, and perhaps also from the capitalization of "Antichrist" in the WCF).


----------



## Bob66

I was adopted into somewhat of an interesting home. A Roman Catholic mother, from a very large and very Catholic family, who broke the rules big time and married a Methodist, although my day never in my memory ever attended a church service anywhere. As a young Catholic in catechism class circa 1950, we we taught taught openly that all Protestants would burn in hell....Excuse the use of a term many today don’t not even think exist, but the nuns who taught me, had no qualms in telling us who they thought would fit the bill as the “AntiChrist” in the world.... Fortunately, I violated the rules of my original church, as did my mother, and I married a Protestant, and found myself, to my great surprise, a Presbyterian at heart. Thank God for his mysterious ways in bringing His sheep into the right fold....I think at the time of the Reformation , the Pope was an obvious choice and remains so today, but our denominational frenzy has also created many little antichrist among our ranks has it not???? Could it not be that if we are to have a major Antichrist at the end time, who’s to say he won’t be a apostate Protestant ?


----------



## Kaalvenist

I hold to the historic position.

It is interesting to note that Charles Hodge, in his _Systematic Theology,_ argued extensively and persuasively that the Papacy is the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; but he then proceeded to argue, oddly enough, that the man of sin is not identical to the Antichrist.

It should also be realized that this was indirectly referenced in the original Article 36 of the Belgic Confession. "And their [civil magistrates'] office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of Antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted." As I recall, the original preface to the Synod of Dordt also contained a side reference to the Roman Antichrist (as does the National Covenant of Scotland); and the statement in the Westminster Confession was first contained in the Irish Articles of Religion, drawn up by James Ussher for the (Anglican) Church of Ireland. In other words, this was a universally-held confessional position of confessionally Reformed churches.


----------

