# The Pope is Antichrist



## jw (Feb 4, 2017)

Beginning last Thursday evening, we were treated to a number of lectures pertaining to the subject matter of the Westminster Confession that says (WCF 25.6):

There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ:*a* 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.*b*

a. Eph 1:22; Col 1:18. • b. Mat 23:8-10; 2 Thes 2:3-4, 8-9; Rev 13:6.​I would like to share the audio links to those lectures (video will be coming at another time) with you, as I found them to be very profitable, particularly the Introduction lecture, and the subsequent exegetical lectures. It is a matter for grieving that the protestant churches in our day seem not to see the egregious sins and doctrines of the Papacy, and the consequential damage that comes as a part of that laxity.

Lectures by the Rev. Todd Ruddell:

1. Why this topic, Why now?
2. Antichrist in Old Testament Prophecy
3. Antichrist in the Epistles of Paul
4. Antichrist in the Epistles of John​
Lecture by the Rev. Justin Stodghill

1. Rejecting Gamaliel's Counsel: The Council of Trent​
Lecture by Mr. Thomas Allie

1. A Brief History of the Papacy​

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 6, 2017)

I was pretty clear that Nero was the Antichrist but wait a minute check this out and it's just food for thought. Nero was Caesar right and if you go down the line of Caesar's they all become him right ??????? So the Pope is the new head of Rome in 313ad about so would they carry the line of Caesar maybe ????????


----------



## ZackF (Feb 6, 2017)

joebonni63 said:


> I was pretty clear that Nero was the Antichrist but wait a minute check this out and it's just food for thought. Nero was Caesar right and if you go down the line of Caesar's they all become him right ??????? So the Pope is the new head of Rome in 313ad about so would they carry the line of Caesar maybe ????????



The "Pontifex Maximus" was the office that more likely could be to be ascribed to the Pope though I don't hold that conclusion either other than the name is obviously borrowed. Furthermore there were pagan and Christian, Roman emperors beyond the year 313. Three hundred years later the Bishop of/in Rome "Pope" Gregory the Great denied supremacy over other bishops and from all accounts was on the side of the angels and his influence in the early medieval was immense. For what it's worth, it's all about the article; "an" vs. "the". I come down on the "an" because of the claims an individual modern Pope makes and not due to some kind of anti-Christ anti-apostolic succession. In my mind a cranky old Walmart greeter spouting apocalyptic, religious gibberish about her apostolic roll in God's plan is the same though she doesn't have regal clothes, tall hat nor any gold except for maybe a tooth.


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 6, 2017)

In 2 John 1:7 John is talking about anyone that is against Christ is an Anti Christ

But the Anti Christ in Revelation with the mark 666 is Nero not the Pope. No doubt 
the Pope is some type of an Anti Christ


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2017)

The antichrist of the Johannine epistles is one who professes and teaches about Christ but is a "deceiver." Nero neither professed nor taught about Christ.

In Revelation 13 the same characteristic of deception is apparent in the second beast with two horns like a lamb which gives life unto the image of the beast. There is no such religious deception which would fit with Nero's persecution even if he met the characteristics of the first beast.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 7, 2017)

MW said:


> The antichrist of the Johannine epistles is one who professes and teaches about Christ but is a "deceiver." Nero neither professed nor taught about Christ.
> 
> In Revelation 13 the same characteristic of deception is apparent in the second beast with two horns like a lamb which gives life unto the image of the beast. There is no such religious deception which would fit with Nero's persecution even if he met the characteristics of the first beast.



No that's what I was saying that Nero was thought to be the Anti-Christ in Revelation
The Pope I think is one of the many Anti-Christ in 2 John 1:7


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 7, 2017)

joebonni63 said:


> No that's what I was saying that Nero was thought to be the Anti-Christ in Revelation
> The Pope I think is one of the many Anti-Christ in 2 John 1:7


Who thinks Nero is antichrist in Revelation? You'll have to be more clear in your language. 

In John's epistles it is clear that the term "antichrist" refers to people that claim the name Christian but that intrude a false Christ into the worship of the visible Church. That included the Gnostic heresy in John's day, which was the relevant antichrist in John's epistles.

The Papacy "fits this bill" of intruding a false Christ into the life of the Visible Church very well, as the Roman Church accepts the ecumenical confessions and is a corrupt part of the visible Church and accepts the name Christian while overthrowing the work of Christ in salvation. The Papacy is an an antichrist in that it defends and promotes these lies and also "embodies" then by substantially usurping the place of Christ in His Church. 

The Papacy is the only suitable candidate for the Antichrist to come, spoken of by John in his epistles, and for the one spoken of in II Thessalonians. E.g. See Patrick Fairbairn's discussion of "The Antichristian Apostasy" in his "Interpretation of Prophecy"

There are many other antichrists e.g. the one of the JWs, of Liberal Theology, etc.

Nero, Napoleon, Communism, Hitler, Napoleon, Obama, etc, are manifestations of the beastly nature of unsanctified civil government spoken of in Daniel and Revelation. Such civil and societal Beasts may sometimes work hand-in-glove with the Beast from the Earth/False Prophet ( Revelation) which eloquently speaks of false teachers in the Church/ antichrists including the Papacy.

E.g. Charles II, and to some extent others of the House of Stuart, ( they were the Beastly civil power) worked hand-in-glove with those in the Scottish Church who were happy to compromise on Church government and worship, etc, and make him be the "governor' of the Church, ( they were the Antichristian forces/Beast from the Earth/ False Prophet) in persecuting the Covenanters in the seventeenth century.

Examples of this unpleasant duo could be multiplied, some more violent and some more subtle than others.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bruce Atkinson (Feb 7, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Beginning last Thursday evening, we were treated to a number of lectures pertaining to the subject matter of the Westminster Confession that says (WCF 25.6):
> 
> There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ:*a* 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.*b*
> 
> ...



When all that was originally written, it was also true that both Catholics and Protestants were burning each other at the stake. It was all out religious war. So very extreme things were said and believed.

I doubt that very few Popes would have put themselves to be equal to Christ or the Apostles, certainly not any of the last six Popes. Ecumenicalism has been all the rage in Rome for a century or so. According to the RCC, no non-Catholic Christian is thought to be going to hell because they are not Roman Catholic.

It is true that after the East-West split around 1000 AD, the RCC ecclesiastic hegemony went crazy, thinking that they would take over the world. Didn't happen, did it? 500+ years later, true believers in the church were correct to protest in a big way the abuses, heresies, and corruption. Should have happened hundreds of years earlier. Certainly the Anti-Christ metaphor applies to anyone (or group) who clearly goes against the scriptures and apostolic doctrines. For example, in the Episcopal Church today you can find many (such as bishop John Shelby Spong) who have gone miles off the track. John (1 John 2:18) wrote: _"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come." _ Plural. Anyone who works against the teachings of Jesus Christ can appropriately be called 'antichrist.'

But to paint today's Roman Catholic Church (or recent Popes) with that broad brush of "Anti-Christ" is absurd. Such accusations remind one of "the Accuser".


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2017)

Bruce Atkinson said:


> But to paint today's Roman Catholic Church (or recent Popes) with that broad brush of "Anti-Christ" is absurd. Such accusations remind one of "the Accuser".



As the Pope has not relinquished one claim concerning his authority on earth it must have been an effective work in public relations to deceive people into thinking he has changed.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 7, 2017)

Bruce Atkinson said:


> When all that was originally written, it was also true that both Catholics and Protestants were burning each other at the stake. It was all out religious war. So very extreme things were said and believed.
> 
> I doubt that very few Popes would have put themselves to be equal to Christ or the Apostles, certainly not any of the last six Popes. Ecumenicalism has been all the rage in Rome for a century or so. According to the RCC, no non-Catholic Christian is thought to be going to hell because they are not Roman Catholic.
> 
> ...


The Papacy encourages people to put their trust in a false Christ/ false way of salvation. The work of salvation is taken out of the hands of Christ and placed into the hands of the Pope and his priests and the laity. 

The various public pronouncements of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church do not change materially the chaos of errors that is their soteriology. Many of their sometimes confusing and contradictory pronouncements seem to serve as a smokescreen to take in the gullible and those who wish to think that things are really changing for the better in the Roman Catholic Church.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 7, 2017)

according to you that could also be the pre trib movement and there free will and god will take is that not false. TBN is false profits same thing leading people to hell. I was reading RC Spoul's notes in the ESV study bible and he said the Beast 666 refers to Nero but I can see how the reformers felt about the CC at the time because they had power now they are like every church just trying to hang on and big crowd is going away so anyway Matthew Poole put 666 this is a mystery to me.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2017)

Bruce Atkinson said:


> I doubt that very few Popes would have put themselves to be equal to Christ or the Apostles



Bruce,
The official Roman dogma is that the Pope holds Peter's office (whom they understand to be the "Prince of the Apostles"), and that he reigns as the Vicar of Christ--that is, he rules in Christ's place.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Feb 8, 2017)

There are many antichrists. But if one takes the biblical propositions describing antichrist and fills in the check boxes for each proposition, the Papacy has them all filled. The RCC's own documents make this much clear. Further, the declaration of Papal infallibility, and the retro-active nature of that proclamation in 1870 (Vatican 1) make those dogmas "irreformable". While later popes have not used this prerogative, to repudiate it would be impossible. Even in Vatican II we have the repetition of the principle of "Semper Eadem" (always the same) while presenting a changing mask, or facade, to the world. Hear Dr. Lloyd-Jones:

_" “Ah but,” you say. “Has not the Roman Catholic Church changed? You are simply looking back, you are speaking as if you lived in the sixteenth century—don’t you realize you are living in the twentieth century?” My answer is quite simple. The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes. Semper eadem. How can she change? 

If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past—but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake. If she says that she is capable of change she is denying her central claim! She does not say that she is changing, and she never will. 

The Church of Rome remains the same. If anything, she is even worse. She has “added” things to what she taught in the sixteenth century, such as papal infallibility. No, there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if ever there is one great world church it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed all the rest and swallowed them in their ignorance!"_

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Philminster (Feb 9, 2017)

I agree that the Pope is 'an' anti Christ. I am not totally convinced that the WCF has it correct (I hold to WCF). 

Is the Pope an archetype like Nero possibly was? I must admit I'm still considering this area of whether the Pope 'is' or is 'the' antischrist.


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 9, 2017)

Philminster said:


> I agree that the Pope is 'an' anti Christ. I am not totally convinced that the WCF has it correct (I hold to WCF).
> 
> Is the Pope an archetype like Nero possibly was? I must admit I'm still considering this area of whether the Pope 'is' or is 'the' antischrist.



I think if we lived during the 1500's down to like the early 1700's yes we would believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ heck in Pre-Trib thinking it comes with a great story and the movie of the week on a major network lol. Now these days I am thinking that the Anti-Christ is very smart will have plants everywhere and set up shop in every country and have a false gospel about Jesus and have even non believers want to help them sounds like you know it already (ISLAM) something to think about they are out of the east ..............


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 9, 2017)

Reading this thread has been surreal. It is like the original post is not there or only certain people can see it. Folks, addressing these questions and assertions is the very purpose of the lecture series. I understand not everyone has 8 hours or so to listen (or just the lecture most relevant to your specific concern), but how helpful is it to make bare assertions and not interact with the content of the lectures? If you don't have time to interact and want to make bare assertions of your own view, start your own thread.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 9, 2017)

joebonni63 said:


> Now these days I am thinking that the Anti-Christ is very smart will have plants everywhere and set up shop in every country and have a false gospel about Jesus and have even non believers want to help them



Sounds like Roman Catholicism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 10, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Sounds like Roman Catholicism.



The only problem Rome has zero power most people hate them non believers make fun of them. Islam has army's everywhere and very hard to stop they actually have governments and one terrorist in 70's high jacks a plane and changed the lives of 300 million Americans. They are determined to kill all Christians. The best part of Islam is Americans love jumping on board with all the bad cults and converting is real easy.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 10, 2017)

au5t1n said:


> Reading this thread has been surreal. It is like the original post is not there or only certain people can see it. Folks, addressing these questions and assertions is the very purpose of the lecture series. I understand not everyone has 8 hours or so to listen (or just the lecture most relevant to your specific concern), but how helpful is it to make bare assertions and not interact with the content of the lectures? If you don't have time to interact and want to make bare assertions of your own view, start your own thread.



*Mod...*
It does seem that the thread has strayed from the intent of the opening post (OP). Let's see if we can get back on track.

Also, anyone that has actually listened to the content in the OP is free to contribute some useful summaries or talking points to spur discussion forward. Is there a plan to transcribe the lectures at some point in the future?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Feb 10, 2017)

Dear Patrick, no there is no plan to transcribe. However, if you look at the conference syllabus I think that enough information is there, (lecturers' notes, resources, quotations, etc.) that should answer to the request. As I heard the other lecturers, and as I assess my own, I can say that we're not straying from historic Biblical teaching on the subject. The Syllabus will bear that out, as will the lectures, for those willing to take the time. One of the points covered from the Lecture on Antichrist is Paul's epistles is why Antichrist cannot be Islam (answering to the gentleman above).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Feb 10, 2017)

Also, we are working on the video editing and I hope to have some good news later this week, or early next week about posting the lectures in video format.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 10, 2017)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear Patrick, no there is no plan to transcribe. However, if you look at the conference syllabus I think that enough information is there, (lecturers' notes, resources, quotations, etc.) that should answer to the request.


Rev. Ruddell,

I was unaware of the availability of the syllabus. That is a very good document to have at hand.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Feb 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Rev. Ruddell,
> 
> I was unaware of the availability of the syllabus. That is a very good document to have at hand.


Thank you. Please excuse the typos in it. <g>.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 12, 2017)

I wanted to say that I listened to the first two lectures this past week and intend to continue with them this week and that they were excellent and clearly the fruit of great erudition. I found the Jesuit origin of both futurist/premillennial and preteristic identifications of the anti-Christ in response to the Reformation position particularly intriguing. I had not been familiar with that. Thank you very much for sharing them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeremy Ivens (Feb 16, 2017)

I'm definitely postmillennial, and I'm preterist about Matthew 24 and some other texts. But I think there is a pretty solid argument for the historical thought on postmillennialism.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Feb 24, 2017)

For those of you who asked, conference video is now available: 

The Pope is Antichrist

Reactions: Like 5


----------

