# The Pope is Antichrist



## VirginiaHuguenot

A collection of statements on the question of whether the Pope is Antichrist:

Waldenses: In 1100, the Waldensian document, Noble Lesson, identified the Pope as the "œAntichrist, the predicted murderer of the Saints, hath already appeared in his true character, seated monarchally in the seven-hilled city." "œOf the authenticity of the Noble Lesson, the beautifully simple production of a confessedly simple people, there can, I think with the learned Raynouard, be no reasonable doubt entertained" (Faber, The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 371).

Albigenses: In 1206, at the conference of Montreal, the Albigenses made the following confesÂ­sion: "œThat the Church of Rome was not the spouse of Christ, but the Church of confusion, drunk with the blood of the martyrs. That the polity of the Church of Rome was neither good nor holy, nor established by Jesus Christ" (Allix, p. 178). The Albigenses "œexpressly declared that they received the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, and that they rejected every doctrine that was not grounded upon, or authorized by them, or was contrary to any one point of doctrine that may be found there. According to which maxim, they confessed that they rejected and condemned all the ceremonies, traditions, and ordinances of the Church of Rome, which they declared to be a den of thieves, and the whore that is spoken of in the Revelation" (Peter Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont and of the Albigenses, I, 1692, 1821 edition, p. 194).

John Hus: Reply to the synod of Prague in 1413 A.D.: [To understand this text it is necessary to recall that from 1409 A.D. there had been three popes in the church. Here John Hus has particularly in mind John XXIII, the pope, of Pisa.] Ah, if only the disciples of Antichrist could declare themselves in accord on the true Holy Roman Church, that is to say all the faithful Christians and saints militant in the faith of Christ, obedient to the teaching of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and even more to those of Christ! If it came about that Rome were destroyed like Sodom, with its pope and its cardinals and that is not impossible the holy church would still exist. This is what I wish to hold to: I hold the pope to be the vicar of Christ in the Roman Church. But I do not consider this to be a matter of faith ... I also hold the following: if the pope is predestined, and exercises his pastoral office in imitation of Jesus Christ, then he is the head of the portion of the church militant that he governs. And if he governs in this way as head of all the church militant according to the law of Jesus Christ then he is its true head under the arch-head, Our Savior Jesus Christ. But if his life is contrary to Christ, then he is a thief a robber, who introduces himself surreptitiously, a ravening wolf a hypocrite and of all mortals the chief Antichrist. The Lord has warned us sufficiently to guard against false Christs and their miracles. And I also hold this: I am ready to accept with respect and reverence, as befits a faithful Christian, all that the Roman Church or the pope and his cardinals define and command to believe and to practice according to the law of Christ, but not all that the pope and his cardinals define and command in general. For nothing is more certain than that the pope and all the Curia can be deceived as to the truth as in their customs. 

William Tyndale: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/docs/tyndale/part1.htm

John Wycliffe: "When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: "two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them." -- LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, 4 vols. (Wash DC: Review and Herald publishing assc, 1950-1954). "œWhy is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws." (Daniel 7:8, 25 quoted) "¦"For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head." Translated from Wyclif's, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263

Ulrich Zwingli: "œI know that in it works the might and power of the Devil, that is, of the Antichrist"¦ the Papacy has to be abolished"¦ But by no other means can it be more thoroughly routed than by the word of God (2 Thessalonians 2), because as soon as the world receives this in the right way, it will turn away from the Pope without compulsion." Principle Works of Zwingli, Vol. 7, p. 135.

Martin Luther: "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." --D'AubignÃ©, b.6, ch. 9. See also On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. 

Philipp Melanchthon: "œSince it is certain that the pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true without any doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is very Antichrist. Likewise in 2 Thess. II, Paul clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church exalting himself above the worship of God, etc."
Translated from Melanchthon, Disputationes, No. 56, "De Matrimonio", in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), vol. 12 col. 535

John Calvin: "œI deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist--I deny him to be the successor of Peter..I deny him to be the head of the church." "œSome persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt"¦I shall briefly show that (Pauls words in 2 Thessalonians 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy" John Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219,220. John Calvin, Institutes.

John Knox: Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be recognized as "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." Taken from The Zurich Letters, pg. 199 by John Knox. He preached that Romish traditions and ceremonies should be abolished along with "œthat tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church" and that he should be acknowledged as "the son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." In a public challenge he declared: "As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted"¦ I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head therof, called the Pope, to be the man of sin of whom the apostle speaketh." Knox, The Zurich Letters, p.199

Thomas Cranmer: "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Taken from Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7. 

Nicholas Ridley: "œThe See of Rome is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, that maintained the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed; and for the same causes this See at this day is the same that St. John calls, in his Revelation, Babylon, or the whore of Babylon, and spiritual Sodom and Egypt, the mother of fornications and abomÂ­inations on earth."

1646 Westminster Confession: Chap. 25.VI: There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ [n]. 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 exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God [o]. [n] Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Eph. 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church. [o] Matt. 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 2 Thess. 2:3 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. 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. Rev. 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 

1689 London Baptist Confession: Chapter 26: Of the Church. 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. ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 ) 

Francis Turretin: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin.htm

Cotton Mather: "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113. 

Matthew Henry: http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC66016.HTM

John Owen: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonid=980116119

Jonathan Edwards: http://www.crta.org/books/edwards/redemption/index_hisred.html

John Wesley: Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms by John Wesley, pg. 110. 

Charles Spurgeon: "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description." "Popery is contrary to Christ´s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray."

Charles Hodge: In his Systematic Theology wrote about twenty pages on the antichrist. He takes 2 Thessalonians 2 as descriptive of the papacy. Hodge explains that the antichrist is religious in character; he sits in the temple of God which is not true of any worldly power. "˜It was not true of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is regarded as the type whence the prophetic portrait of Antichrist was drawn. It is not true of the Roman emperors.´ "˜The popes claim the honour that is due to God alone. They exalt themselves above God.´ "˜Rome is sustained by "˜lying wonders´ a history of apparitions of the Virgin Mary and of saints and angels and miracles of every possible description from the most stupendous to the most absurd.´ Hodge gives sound advice that while recognising that many Roman Catholics past and present are true believers, we must expose the papal system as rotten. There is a difference between the core and the circumference. The core comprising the Pope and the curia is corrupt in doctrine. On the circumference are many sincere souls to whom the call is made, Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues (Rev 18:4).

J.A. Wylie: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf

Erroll Hulse: http://www.reformation-today.org/puritans_and_promises/promise3.htm

Ian Paisley: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=antichrist_20

Dr. F. Nigel Lee: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/lee1.html


----------



## Irishcat922

There goes the Hasselhoff theory!

[Edited on 28-12-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## Peter

Has the church forgotten their dying testimony against him?


----------



## andreas

***A collection of statements on the question of whether the Pope is Antichrist:***



Firstly,interpretations belong to God, Genesis40:8, and not the theologians.
Secondly the bible defines very clearly and concisely who is the antichrist is.

"Who is a Liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the father and the Son." 1 John 2:22.

Anyone that denies the father and the son is an antichrist.I did not say that, God said that.

Finally, we are clearly told that there is more than one.

"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

So forget the ramblings of theologians,and concentrate what the bible says.forget about the Pope,Hitler,Batman,Superwoman,and the Roadrunner.

The bible tells us that anyone that denies the father and the son is an antichrist,and there is more than one..

andreas.


----------



## Peter

The mystery of iniquity, ie the papacy, parrallels the "mystery of godliness" 1 Tim 3:16, ie Jesus. The mystery of godliness slowly unfolded, ever becoming more clear by progressive revelation, finally culminating in the incarnation. And so likewise, the papacy slowly developed till at length it was revealed and attained its maturity in the 13th century after the falling away. During the Apostle's time the spirit of antichrist was even at work in the Gnostics and Judaiser. Late in the 1st century the Bishops already began to usurp the perogatives of the other presbyters. Not long after that the Bishops began to gain preeminence according to the distinction of their city. Finally, the Bishop of Rome was considered the chief bishop. Yet still one thing restrained him- Caesar. That is worldly powers. Christ had the throne of David, Antichrist needed his temporal throne too. The temporal authority of the mystery of iniquity progressed thus: satan raised up 4 successive beasts (Daniel 7), 4 kingdoms - Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The last, Rome broke into 10 horns, or dynasties. Three were plucked up. 1st, the Vandals that occupied Rome were driven out by Justinian, 2nd the Ostrogoths by Justinian again, finally Charlamagne drove out the Longobards and gave the northern portion of Italy to the pope. So three horns were plucked up before the little horn, ie the Papacy, and the restrainer was removed.

Im still researching the details of the Reformed interpretive method Historicism, but Im still committed to the scriptural eschatology of the Reformation and our Confession. What I wrote is based off of J.A. Wylie's the Papacy is the antichrist: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf


----------



## andreas

***What I wrote is based off of J.A. Wylie's the Papacy is the antichrist:***

Are we going to listen to J.A.Wylie,or to the bible, that clearly tells us who the antichrist is? 
The bible was written by people as the were moved by the Holy ghost. 2 Peter 1:21

andreas


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Secondly the bible defines very clearly and concisely who is the antichrist is.



Yet equally clear is that one Antichrist will come who is distinct from the many antichrists.

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



> Firstly,interpretations belong to God, Genesis40:8, and not the theologians.



Did God directly give you that interpretation of Gen 40:8? You cannot read _anything_ without interpreting it. How we understand or interpret a particular scripture is to accord with the rest of Scripture yet human interpretation nonetheless occurs. Prayerfully the Spirit will lead us to the correct one. Even were God to directly verbally say to you something you would have to interpret it. Such is the problem with language. So setting up a dichotomy between the interpretation of God and theologians is wrong. Indeed the task of the theologian by interpreting, is to ascertain God's interpretation.



> So forget the ramblings of theologians,and concentrate what the bible says.



Is it that your interpretation is infalliable that you reject w/o consideration the interpretion of theologians? BTW, I wouldnt dismiss the judicious opinion of Luther, Calvin, etc, as "ramblings".



> Are we going to listen to J.A.Wylie,or to the bible, that clearly tells us who the antichrist is?



Why not both, since they tell us the same.

[Edited on 28-12-2004 by Peter]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The papacy was not around in the first century. The Bishop of rome was restrained... when? The problem is that Paul said the readers knew who was restraining him.



That's what confuses me about the Reformers and Puritans position regarding the Pope. No one will dispute that the Pope is an antichrist, but I'm not sure he can fit the description of _the_ Antichrist. I still wrestle with it. Especially when we see the Pope today welcoming the ecumenical nonsense both with protestants and others like Jews and Muslims, and all the modern heresies today regarding justification and considering Rome our "brothers." But we must not interpret Scripture with a newspaper...

[Edited on 28-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## andreas

***Why not both, since they tell us the same.***

But they do not tell us the same.

andreas.


----------



## andreas

"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! 
Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"2 John 1:7-10 

The antichrist is a deceiver,who denies that Christ came in the flesh.
The bible is also quite specific describing antichrist as the man of sin,we are also told the mark of the beast is the mark of man.In both instances it is man,and NOT A MAN.


Simply antichrist is the spirit of Satan working in man,any man.Not any specific man.

andreas.

[Edited on 28-12-2004 by andreas]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> the papacy was not around in the first century. The Bishop of rome was restrained... when? The problem is that Paul said the readers knew who was restraining him.



The problem is that the text here is not as clear as either of you make it out to be. It literally could be:

"you know what is restraining" (NKJV) or
"you know what is restraining him now"

There could be reference to someone (him) who is _being restrained_ (i.e. the object of the participle kate,con) or someone doing the restraining.

The Greek is ambiguous. The "now" could be simply a particle, with reference to the fact that "now you know" and not have any temporal significance, or it could have relation to the knowing - the fact that they now know, *because Paul* revealed it to them. Calvin renders it: "Et nunc quid detineat, scitis," With the "and now" (et nunc) being a particle.

That is not to say that this text REQUIRES that the Papacy be the Antichrist, but it is sloppy exegesis (not to mention Greek) to trot this out as some kind of definitive text against that interpretation.

[Edited on 12/28/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> added with the cumulative case I offered above I think I stand on good ground.



No one ever stands on "good ground" on conjecture when Calvin takes a different position.


----------



## andreas

***Did God directly give you that interpretation of Gen 40:8?***

It is not my interpretation,read the verse again;

"And they said unto him,we have dreamed a dream,and there is no iterpreter of it.And Joseph said unto them,Do not interpretations belong to God?I pray you."


God said it ,i did not.The same thing with antichrist,God tells us clearly who he is,1 JOHN 2:22, 1 JOHN 2:18, 2 JOHN 1:7-10.

I do not see anything here specifying the Pope,do you?

andreas.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> and Owen thought the Day of The Lord was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. I'll side with Owen over Calvin on tis. Especially since Calvin never commented on Revelation.



But Paul,

Owen thought that the Pope was the Antichrist, so I don't know what your comment is supposed to prove. After all it was Owen who wrote the Savoy, which states:



> 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, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.



And you know that Owen didn't write on Revelation either. So does that mean that any old guy who wrote on Revelation is superior to Calvin on this? Don't think so.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 2 Thess 2
> 
> 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work



And this _has_ to refer to the Antichrist, why?

Calvin_ in loc_:



> 7. The mystery of iniquity. This is opposed to revelation ; for as Satan had not yet gathered so much strength, as that Antichrist could openly oppress the Church, he says that he is carrying on secretly and clandestinely 9 what he would do openly in his own time. He was therefore at that time secretly laying the foundations on which he would afterwards rear the edifice, as actually took place. And this tends to confirm more fully what I have already stated, that it is not one individual that is represented under the term Antichrist, but one kingdom, which extends itself through many ages. In the same sense, John says that Antichrist will come, but that there were already many in his time. (1 John 2:18.) For he admonishes those who were then living to be on their guard against that deadly pestilence, which was at that time shooting up in various forms. For sects were rising up which were the seeds, as it were, of that unhappy weed which has well--nigh choked and destroyed God's entire tillage. 10 But although Paul conveys the idea of a secret manner of working, yet he has made use of the term mystery rather than any other, alluding to the mystery of salvation, of which he speaks elsewhere, (Colossians 1:26,) for he carefully insists on the struggle of repugnancy between the Son of God and this son of perdition.


----------



## doulosChristou

Wow! Thanks for all those links Andrew. I found Turretin's well-reasoned Scriptural arguments the most compelling. My dear friend Richard Bennett, a former RC priest and now a brother in Christ, wrote an article a while back on this topic:

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/antichrist_unveiled.htm

Does anyone know whether it is true that the Jesuits originated/popularized both Preterism and Futurism during the counter-reformation?


----------



## sastark

Andrew,

Thanks for posting all those resources. I look forward to reading through them all!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> well, a few of the quotes by Andrwew above had people using this passage to refer to the Antichrist. If people want to drop this we can and then move to the next text. I see NO WAY that the pope can be read into any of the anti Christ texts. Furthermore, Owen was inconsistant. But he did link the Day of The Lord to 70 ad and 2 Thess 2 links this day of the Lord to the man of lawlessness... thus follow out the conclusion.



I'm not really concerned with this issue, but the above is little more than _ipse dixit._ First Owen is a model when its suits, then he is inconsistent; first Calvin is all wet, then he helps.

There is also the distinct possibility of the Day of the Lord in a typological sense. This whole discussion in my opinion yields infinitessimal small fruit while causing maximum disruption of unity for the brethren.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'm not disunified. I'm just saying that I see no way to prove the Pope is the antichrist Biblically. Fred, you don't agree with those guys on EVERYTHING. Forget latin, in English we have a phrase: "That's the pot calling the kettle black."
> 
> If someone wants to believe that the Pope is the antichrist I'll harbor no bad feelings. Honestly, I think the reformers just called him that because they hated Rome. Even their proof texts are a huge leap.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know why you're picking on me. I thought you wanted to keep it at 98.5%.
> 
> For your own sake, if I were you I'd hold that the pope is THE antichrist since the confession says so. If not, that may come back to bit you when you appeal to the confession against me for something
> 
> p.s. hope your kids had a good christmas



Not picking on you, says the pot. 

I do like our 98.5% - I just think sometimes you push partial preterism a bit to hard, especially given the historical view of the Reformed.

And you really need to look at that Adopting Act of 1789, I'm fine with my Confession. 
But if backed into a corner, I'll side with Westminster over you any day!  

P.S. They had a great Christmas. Not overblown, and we got simple gifts, but they really enjoyed it. Then Mom & Dad had Christmas excitement yesterday when my wife went out and got a bunch of platic tubs to hold the legos, K'Nex, GI Joes and other stuff our kids have accumulated over the past few years so that we could keep the room clean!

[Edited on 12/28/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## luvroftheWord

I'm not taking a position on this, except that I think it was very silly for the divines to include in the original WCF that the antichrist is the pope. With as much debate and controversy over eschatology in the church (and even the Reformed church itself). Many different understandings of the antichrist can be reached following a distinctly Reformed interpretive method. With that in mind, does it make any sense whatsoever to make the issue of the identity of the antichrist a CONFESSIONAL issue? I think not. I'm glad the latest version of the WCF has been modified on this point.

Also, I'm sure an equally impressive list of scholars/theologians could be presented in defense of the idea that the pope is not the antichrist. But then again, these are more modern theologians, so their opinions aren't old enough to really be taken seriously. 

And ditto to this statement by Paul:



> Honestly, I think the reformers just called him that because they hated Rome. Even their proof texts are a huge leap.



My sentiments exactly.


[Edited on 28-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I'm not taking a position on this, except that I think it was very silly for the divines to include in the original WCF that the antichrist is the pope. With as much debate and controversy over eschatology in the church (and even the Reformed church itself). Many different understandings of the antichrist can be reached following a distinctly Reformed interpretive method. With that in mind, does it make any sense whatsoever to make the issue of the identity of the antichrist a CONFESSIONAL issue? I think not. I'm glad the latest version of the WCF has been modified on this point.
> 
> Also, I'm sure an equally impressive list of scholars/theologians could be presented in defense of the idea that the pope is not the antichrist. But then again, these are more modern theologians, so their opinions aren't old enough to really be taken seriously.



Actually, the real issue is not eschatology but ecclesiology. If the Pope is not the Antichrist, then there is no basis for allowing Rome to be a (apostate) church and its baptism to be valid. That was the motivation I think.


----------



## luvroftheWord

But a church doesn't have to have an antichrist in it in order for it to be apostate. I think you can argue Rome's apostasy based on other things.

I really think that what the divines should have written to express their views was this:

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; Do we hate the Pope? Yes, we hates him! We hates him!


----------



## Bladestunner316

I think the Yankee's are the anti-Christ !!


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> But a church doesn't have to have an antichrist in it in order for it to be apostate. I think you can argue Rome's apostasy based on other things.
> 
> I really think that what the divines should have written to express their views was this:
> 
> 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; Do we hate the Pope? Yes, we hates him! We hates him!



The point is that Antichrist is one who is IN the Church. That is what is drawn from this. I don't agree, but that is what nearly every one who defends Popish baptism argues.

And by the way, why wouldn't one hate the Pope? Well, I guess the neat hat is worth something. But other than that, this non-Pope-is-the-Antichrist man would rejoice if the entire Popish cult was burned to the ground, never to raise its head again.

[Edited on 12/28/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the thread is titled "The Pope is The Antichrist."
> 
> 
> I'm just waiting for this to be proven.
> 
> 
> Fred, I'm sorry for taking my partial preterism too far on the *eschatology* forum



That's OK. You can get a tub to put it in!


----------



## Irishcat922

It is a cool hat!


----------



## luvroftheWord

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> But a church doesn't have to have an antichrist in it in order for it to be apostate. I think you can argue Rome's apostasy based on other things.
> 
> I really think that what the divines should have written to express their views was this:
> 
> 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; Do we hate the Pope? Yes, we hates him! We hates him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Antichrist is one who is IN the Church. That is what is drawn from this. I don't agree, but that is what nearly every one who defends Popish baptism argues.
> 
> And by the way, why wouldn't one hate the Pope? Well, I guess the neat hat is worth something. But other than that, this non-Pope-is-the-Antichrist man would rejoice if the entire Popish cult was burned to the ground, never to raise its head again.
> 
> [Edited on 12/28/2004 by fredtgreco]
Click to expand...


I agree, although I'd rather they repent than burn. And I, personally, don't even like the hat that much. They can just burn the hat.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the papacy was not around in the first century. The Bishop of rome was restrained... when? The problem is that Paul said the readers knew who was restraining him.



What I wrote was unclear? The papacy was not around but its beginnings were already at work. The mystery of iniquity was at work from the beginning, slowly being unveiled- the 4 revolutions of the four beasts to empty a throne for the antichrist is one manifestation of the mystery of iniquity. Pauls use of that phrase "mystery of iniquity" is deliberate. He meant to parallel a phrase he used in his epistle to Timothy "mystery of godliness." The mystery of iniquity parallels the mystery of godliness in every way, even its progression. Christ was slowly revealed, so was Antichrist. As verse 7 implies the Wicked was not around because a restrainer held it back. The pope was restrained by the Roman Empire. Until the pope's temporal authority could be consumated he could not be revealed.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> But a church doesn't have to have an antichrist in it in order for it to be apostate. I think you can argue Rome's apostasy based on other things.
> 
> I really think that what the divines should have written to express their views was this:
> 
> 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; Do we hate the Pope? Yes, we hates him! We hates him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Antichrist is one who is IN the Church. That is what is drawn from this. I don't agree, but that is what nearly every one who defends Popish baptism argues.
> 
> And by the way, why wouldn't one hate the Pope? Well, I guess the neat hat is worth something. But other than that, this non-Pope-is-the-Antichrist man would rejoice if the entire Popish cult was burned to the ground, never to raise its head again.
> 
> [Edited on 12/28/2004 by fredtgreco]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, although I'd rather they repent than burn. And I, personally, don't even like the hat that much. They can just burn the hat.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. I meant the entire superstructure - cathedrals, images, icons, superstititions, etc., not the people themselves. Saul/Paul is always to be preferred to Herod.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> how did first century Christians know the identity of the antichrist. They *knew* the pope?



Again,

They did not need to know the Pope. The text nowhere says that. They could either know the Spirit of Antichrist which animates the Pope and others, or they could know the one whon restrains AntiChrist. You're really making this 2 Thess. text say more than is there. The Greek just won't allow it.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> how did first century Christians know the identity of the antichrist. They *knew* the pope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again,
> 
> They did not need to know the Pope. The text nowhere says that. They could either know the Spirit of Antichrist which animates the Pope and others, or they could know the one whon restrains AntiChrist. You're really making this 2 Thess. text say more than is there. The Greek just won't allow it.
Click to expand...


Fred,

Are you saying that even if the papacy were to melt way, that the pope would still be *the* antichrist?


----------



## Bladestunner316




----------



## Joseph Ringling

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I think the Yankee's are the anti-Christ !!



Than I've already taken the mark of the beast.


----------



## Bladestunner316




----------



## Bladestunner316

skinsfanjoe


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> how did first century Christians know the identity of the antichrist. They *knew* the pope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again,
> 
> They did not need to know the Pope. The text nowhere says that. They could either know the Spirit of Antichrist which animates the Pope and others, or they could know the one whon restrains AntiChrist. You're really making this 2 Thess. text say more than is there. The Greek just won't allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Are you saying that even if the papacy were to melt way, that the pope would still be *the* antichrist?
Click to expand...


No Tom,

I'm saying that you can't use 2 Thess 2:6 to require that the believers in Paul's day *know* the identity of the Antichrist. The Greek is ambiguous at best. 

For example, this is a case where the Byzantine and Alexandrian (or critical and majority, if you like) readings are IDENTICAL and you have two different translations:

Knowing the restrainer, the restrained revealed
ESV 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.

NASB 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

knowing the restrainer, the restrainer revealed
NKJ 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.

ASV 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.

GENEVA 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And nowe ye knowe what withholdeth that he might be reueiled in his time.

TYNDALE 2 Thessalonians 2:6 And nowe ye knowe what with holdeth: even that he myght be vttered at his tyme.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> how did first century Christians know the identity of the antichrist. They *knew* the pope?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again,
> 
> They did not need to know the Pope. The text nowhere says that. They could either know the Spirit of Antichrist which animates the Pope and others, or they could know the one whon restrains AntiChrist. You're really making this 2 Thess. text say more than is there. The Greek just won't allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's systematics. when this text is tied in with others the conclusion is unavoidable
Click to expand...


Funny how nearly every Systematics text disagrees with you! :bigsmile:

But at least we each get to up our post count! 

[Edited on 12/28/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Peter

Its very sad people think the Reformers believed the pope is the antichrist was just because they hated him. The truth is they hated him because they recognized him as the antichrist.

It wasnt something they just asserted either, they went to great lengths to prove it.
Francis Turretin's 7th Disputation, "whether it can be proven the pope of Rome is the Antichrist": http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin.htm

John Calvin's Institutes Book 4, Chapter 7 http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk4ch07.html


----------



## Bladestunner316

I dont and do agree witht he pope being the ac I thought the pictures were worth noting.

blade


----------



## luvroftheWord

The position that the Pope as the antichrist is built largely in part on a historicist understanding of Revelation. But the problem with historicism is that it overlooks the fact that Revelation is a recapitulation. 

Really, though, I think historicism as a position leads to more confusion than clarity, simply because every generation tends to read its own circumstances into the prophecies and distorts the understanding of them. Nobody has convinced me yet that Revelation is to be read chronologically.

R. Fowler White has a good article on the recapitulation position that is worth reading, but I don't have the link at the moment. Chuck Hill also has a good Revelation lecture series at www.thirdmill.org. I know White and Hill aren't Calvin and Turretin, but if you have to be in order to know anything then I guess we're all dummies.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Recapitulation is the view that Revelation is a telling and retelling of the same story over again, but with different details and emphasis each time.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Wow! Thanks for all those links Andrew. I found Turretin's well-reasoned Scriptural arguments the most compelling. My dear friend Richard Bennett, a former RC priest and now a brother in Christ, wrote an article a while back on this topic:
> 
> http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/antichrist_unveiled.htm
> 
> Does anyone know whether it is true that the Jesuits originated/popularized both Preterism and Futurism during the counter-reformation?



You're welcome! 

Excellent article.

That's my understanding too. Preterism and Futurism, as I understand it, have a Jesuit pedigree but Reformed credentials today. Historicism, either Amill or Postmill, has a Reformed pedigree but few Reformed credentials today.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Andrew,
> 
> Thanks for posting all those resources. I look forward to reading through them all!



You're welcome, Seth!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Excellent article.
> 
> That's my understanding too. Preterism and Futurism, as I understand it, have a Jesuit pedigree but Reformed credentials today. Historicism, either Amill or Postmill, has a Reformed pedigree but few Reformed credentials today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though partially true I would not totally agree with this, Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.kendavies.addr.com/start/articles/gary_demar/gary_01a.htm
> 
> http://www.kendavies.addr.com/start/articles/gary_demar/gary_01b.htm
> 
> http://www.presence.tv/cms/shreds-demar.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 12-31-2004 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


I appreciate the links, Paul, and will give them careful study before I respond in-depth. However, the last link did not work. 

I offer this link as a preliminary rebuttal: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

To clarify a little bit further, I am not entering a full-length debate on the subject of historicism vs. the other interpretative approaches. I believe with the Reformers that the Pope/Papacy is Antichrist, and yet I believe Christ came in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. I note, Paul, your use of the word 'partially' and also that you are I believe a partial preterist. There are distinctions to be made in this discussion of eschatology that are important which I don't claim to have all the answers to. I do believe that a concerted effort on the part of Jesuits was made to divert the Reformed emphasis on the Papacy as Antichrist which lead to the popularization of other schools of interpretation besides historicism. I am postmill as were the Puritans but not all Reformers. I believe that postmill historicism, generally speaking, is the Biblical and Confessional approach to eschatology. The identification of the Pope as Antichrist is a very important aspect of the Reformation which views Roman Catholicism as the manifestation of the mystery of inquity spoken of by the Apostle Paul. Having said that, I respect amill and other kinds of postmill commentators who approach what are sometimes admittedly difficult Scriptures with a view towards understanding how Christ is working now and conquering his enemies. There is much study on my part that is required to adequately respond to all the points that have been made on this subject. However, I started this thread with an eye towards the consensus of the Reformed Church historically as to the identity of Antichrist and I believe this is sound Biblical interpretation. I don't feel the need to debate it now, but with futher study on my own I may revisit this thread. 

I appreciate the insights of Fred, Peter and others who have commented in support of the validity or plausability of the Reformers' viewpoints. And I appreciate the challenges posed by Paul and others as well. It's an intermural debate. It is a debate of much more consequence than most in the church today would acknowledge, and yet it's a debate not over fundamentals of the faith, but of Christ's workings throughout history. I say now with the Reformers and the Westminster Assembly that the Pope is Antichrist and look forward to exploring this subject in greater depth in 2005.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Here's a good resource on historic Protestant expositions of 2 Thessalonians: 

http://thebeastunmasked.com/2Thes/2Thes.htm


----------



## Calvin Cormier

Andrew . . . . the Pope is Antichrist

Paul . . . . . . . prove it from the Bible

Qestion: In that God did not state the language to be used, can it be proved from the Bible that Neron Qysr is the numbered beast?


----------



## turmeric

Quasar is the beast? Yuk,yuk,yuk!


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I think so



prove it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Paul,

Besides David Chilton and Ken Gentry, do you have anyone else who takes your position? Anyone, perhaps, outside the 20th-21st centuries? Quoting church fathers to show how cruel Nero was doesn't make your case, you know. 

I note that you didn't respond to any of the arguments put forth by Reformers and Presbyterian theologians previously who identify the Pope as Antichrist. 

Chilton and Gentry vs. the Reformers and Presbyterians...hmmm. I know with whom I stand.


----------



## Peter

Paul, 
Dr. F.N. Lee believes both Pagan and Papal Rome are the mystery of iniquity. The man of sin (the Papacy) existed "embryonically" in Pagan Rome. I will post more upon further study.

http://dr-fnlee.org/docs5/iithess/iithess.pdf

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> But we must not interpret Scripture with a newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and *that* is the downfall of historicism. In my opinion.
Click to expand...


Does this mean that preterism or partial preterism doesn't make reference to history? What a foolish thing to say. Historicism and preterism both make reference to history. Whether Nero or the Pope, neither is mentioned specifically in the Bible. We are taking Scriptural teaching on the mystery of inquity and applying it to history. It is dispensationalism that interprets Scripture with a newspaper.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

More thinking aloud on this isse: 

Partial preterism and historicism both seem to agree that Antichrist is associated with Rome (cf. Rev. 17). One posits the civil authority, Nero, and the other posits the ecclesiastical authority, the Bishop of Rome, the Papacy, the so-called "Vicar of Christ on Earth." Both assume the title of Deity. As Emperor, Nero and the Caesars claimed divinity. Likewise, "Pope Innocent III enacted in writing, "˜We may according to the fulness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God.´ I Book of Gregory 9 Decret. C3. The Lateran Council, addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus states, "˜Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, tou art physician, thou art governor, thou are husbandman, thou finally ART ANOTHER GOD ON EARTH´ Council Edit. Colm. Agrip. 1618. Pope Nicholas assumed the title of God. His words are:"”"˜I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . 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? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be ABOVE ALL GODS. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.´ See Decret. Par Distinct 96 Ch. 7 Edit Lugd. 1661." (Ian Paisley, Antichrist Exalts Himself Above God, http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=antichrist_18). Scripture does teach that Antichrist sits in the temple of God: "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." (2 Thess. 2.4). In my view, the clearest fulfillment of this verse is the Papacy.


----------



## Robin

I promise this is relevant -- though some might disagree....

I'd be very careful guys....is the book of Revelation prophecy ONLY....OR, does it have another genre trait??? How about apocalyptic literature?

If it is apocalyptic -- it bears much OT symbolism so as to describe how history works compared to God's working in it rather than describing specific current events -- making the point to the Church, that though they are being killed (it doesn't look like we're winning) _Christ will triumph_ -- _and the bad guys_ _going to get it in the end_. 

If we only view Revelation as prophecy (information about the future) then we're doomed to tie endless current events to what it says. Speculations galore.....

We can't blame the Reformers for thinking the Pope is Antichrist----so many Reformers died at the hands of Rome (100's of thousands.) Major historic events colored their expectations: the Spanish Armada; the English civil war; the French apostasy, etc., (All the huge, scary, disruptive current events impacted their interpretations. Sound familiar?) Some went so far as to set dates for Christ's return. So....should we not be careful in all this??? Are we likely to repeat their mistakes?

Revelation is a book of symbols -- not a puzzle book. It is supposed to be a "blessing."

And the upshot of it all is, Revelation is designed to get the Church to 1. Not be idle-be about the work of delivering the Message of the Gospel and 2. Keep watch (oil in the lamp) not setting dates...but being shrewd, wise and faithful....all the while, encouraging the Church with the knowledge of Christ - what He has done and will do.

Is anyone on this page????

Hmmmmmm.....

Robin 

[Edited on 1-3-2005 by Robin]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> But we must not interpret Scripture with a newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and *that* is the downfall of historicism. In my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this mean that preterism or partial preterism doesn't make reference to history? What a foolish thing to say. Historicism and preterism both make reference to history. Whether Nero or the Pope, neither is mentioned specifically in the Bible. We are taking Scriptural teaching on the mystery of inquity and applying it to history. It is dispensationalism that interprets Scripture with a newspaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow. That just showed me you don't understand (1) historicism, (2) Preterism, (3) equivocated on the word "history."
Click to expand...


Feel free to enlighten me. Why do you say that historicism interprets Scripture through a newspaper, but preterism doesn't?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Paul,
> 
> Besides David Chilton and Ken Gentry, do you have anyone else who takes your position? Anyone, perhaps, outside the 20th-21st centuries? Quoting church fathers to show how cruel Nero was doesn't make your case, you know.
> 
> I note that you didn't respond to any of the arguments put forth by Reformers and Presbyterian theologians previously who identify the Pope as Antichrist.
> 
> Chilton and Gentry vs. the Reformers and Presbyterians...hmmm. I know with whom I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Some quotes said he was the beast.
> 
> I did respond. If you remember, Andrew, I took the very first paper link by a "reformer" and critiqued via first century time indicators.
> 
> Hmmmm, the only way to make the Pope get 666 is by using latin, a language that NO FIRST CENTURY Christian used YET revelation was written to them, as well as being fulfilled soon. So, I know where I stand. What a joke to have to use latin to make the Pope = 666. I'm sure John really was thinking about the latin language when he wrote Revelation.
Click to expand...


Well, who else do you have to cite on your behalf besides Chilton and Gentry? Anyone outside the 20th-21st century? I'm waiting. 

I am unable to find your critique of a specific Reformer's exegisis or comments. Can you point me towards your critique?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> But we must not interpret Scripture with a newspaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and *that* is the downfall of historicism. In my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this mean that preterism or partial preterism doesn't make reference to history? What a foolish thing to say. Historicism and preterism both make reference to history. Whether Nero or the Pope, neither is mentioned specifically in the Bible. We are taking Scriptural teaching on the mystery of inquity and applying it to history. It is dispensationalism that interprets Scripture with a newspaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow. That just showed me you don't understand (1) historicism, (2) Preterism, (3) equivocated on the word "history."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to enlighten me. Why do you say that historicism interprets Scripture through a newspaper, but preterism doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ask the person who I gave the thumbs up to.
Click to expand...


So you don't have an answer?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Paul,

I am going to make a few comments in response to what you have said, and then I will not interact with you further on this subject. It does not seem profitable for either of us. 

You said that Chilton and Gentry are specialists in the area of eschatology and the Reformers and Presbyterians are not. That begs the question. 

I started this thead, not you. I started it with the intent of exploring why it is that the consensus of the historic Reformed Church acknowledged the Pope to be Antichrist, a view which is rejected by many even in Reformed circles today, although the original Westminster Confession identifies him as such. I am all for exegetical study of the issue at hand, but that wasn't the primary focus of my starting the thread. When you were given the opportunity to defend your view, you cited people you give credit to. And yet you seem outraged that I would cite Reformers who hold to my view. That seems like a double standard. 

You said that the views of historicist theologians are constantly changing. I cannot fathom why you would say that. My very first post shows how the Church has for 1000 years testified the same thing: the Pope is Antichrist. 

The 42 months need not be taken literally. It can be taken symbollically in accord with the type of genre in which this statement is found. See: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/times.htm

I have looked and looked and cannot find a single instance in this thread where you responded to a specific Reformer's comments or exegesis. 

It's obvious we disagree on this whole issue and I would rather not have this thread degenerate into something ugly. It's late on the East Coast and getting later on the West Coast, so if I have said something untoward, please forgive me. I don't wish to argue, my desire has been to explore the Reformers' view and why the Reformed Church today no longer holds to it. 

Peace and best wishes,
Andrew


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Paul,

My last word to you on this subject is simply this: 

God's Word alone teaches us what we are to understand concerning Antichrist and any other Scriptural doctrine. That is my starting point as I study this issue. 

However, I would be foolish to ignore the consensus of the Reformed Church's teaching for the past 1000 years on this subject. Just as I would be foolish to fail to acquaint myself with the teachings of Chilton and Gentry. I aim to study it all. But I have as a general perspective the conviction that the Reformers' "opinions" and exegesis are worth their weight in gold and not to be disregarded lightly. I frankly don't have that kind of currency with respect to the views of Chilton and Gentry. That's a built-in bias for which I am not ashamed. Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Henry and others are among the most brilliant, scholarly and godly minds of any age, and their exegesis appears to be unassailable. Moreover, the Confession of my church is one which I adhere to without exception. I have high regard for the Westminster Assembly and agree with everything they wrote. Not because I think they were infallable but because I have yet to see any of their doctrines refuted from Scripture. I also hold to a high view of subscription and if I did object to the Confession on any point, I would probably find a different church (probably the PCA! note: I am a former PCA'er). 

Another point: I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. Fred's exegesis on this thread has been very helpful. I have to rely on authorities I trust for understanding the Biblical text, and the ones you cite, Paul, are not high on my list, although I credit Gentry highly in certain areas. 

Edited.

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Ranger

Hey Robin,
I wanted to comment on your discussion of the Revelation's genre. The book itself claims to be a letter, a prophecy and a revelation. That means that the book falls under three major first century genres; epistolary, prophetic and apocalyptic. In regards to symbol this is crucial because it means that the symbols were meant to be understood. Typical apocalyptic literature was pseudonymous and intended to not be interpreted, but this is prophetic apocalypse written as a letter meaning to be read out loud to a congregation. At various times John tells the reader to understand or discern the symbols as well.


----------



## Peter

Actually, Henry didn't write a commentary on Revelation. He died before completing the last books of the Bible, and other ministers finished his work. On the other hand Calvin did write explicity historicistical comments on other prophecies. Thomas Goodwin wrote a historicist Exposition on the Revelation and James Durham wrote his own commentary. Gentry, to my knowledge, never wrote a commentary. And Chilton was a heretic (just taking preterism to its logical conclusion).

We have no reason to believe Revelation was written exclusively about events that would happen during first century. John said the events would shortly start to come to pass not shortly finish coming to pass. So John's apocalypse begins in the 1st century but doesnt necessarily end there. Notice the book ends with the consumation of all things. Another thing, by the end of the 1st century, Christianity had spread all over Europe, Paul himself traveled to Spain, possibly as far as Britian, so there were definiately Latin speaking Christians, but thats irrelevent.


----------



## Peter

Saying all prophecies of Revelation had to have been fulfilled in the 1st century b/c of Rev 1: 9 doesnt fly. That's all I said. And you're welcome for the note on Henry.

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Peter

Easy. 
Am I being accused of libel? How have I maliciously defamed your character? Tell me how I have offended you brother, so that I may repent.


----------



## Peter

I dont see preterism as heresy.

Of course I never meant to imply you dont believe in the future return of Christ, if that's what you're getting at (I thought we understood this proposition was universally held by everyone in the discussion, so qualifying my remarks would be unnecessary).

So when you said,



> John tells us that the book is written to first century Christians.



I knew that meant only concerning those things pertinent to the Antichrist and such. Though perhaps to someone foreign to the PB they may be seen as more.

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Peter

Me too. Well, any way...

You've illustrated a good point, the arbitrariness of saying all Rev is for 1st century Xians, yet exempting the parts we both agree are yet to come. :bigsmile:


----------



## Peter

> better to be arbitrary then to rip the book, which is profitable for the man of God, right out of the hands offirst century men of God.



Can't we just learn to share 

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> Hey Robin,
> I wanted to comment on your discussion of the Revelation's genre. The book itself claims to be a letter, a prophecy and a revelation. That means that the book falls under three major first century genres; epistolary, prophetic and apocalyptic. In regards to symbol this is crucial because it means that the symbols were meant to be understood. Typical apocalyptic literature was pseudonymous and intended to not be interpreted, but this is prophetic apocalypse written as a letter meaning to be read out loud to a congregation. At various times John tells the reader to understand or discern the symbols as well.




AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, a n d A----M----E----N 

Robin


----------

