# The Papacy: Antichrist



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 26, 2007)

Hey all, 

I guess this is the best forum for this topic. I am writing not to contend for the papacy being Antichrist but to understand why reformed people seem to reject this idea today. For probably all of us (Baptist or no) the indentification of the papacy/popes as Antichrirst are in our confessions of faith and was the opinion of the many reformers, et. of the theologians we have come to love and respect. 

I have read a small measure of their reasoning on this and it is not unsound. I don't want to remove any argument one would want to bring as to why the men who went before us were wrong, but I find the answer that they suffered so much as pretty darn weak. Yes, they suffered. But I do not see in their other writings or accounts of their suffereings to have such an impact on them so as to cloud their sound judgements. 

So, if you disagree with your confession of faith on the matter, why? What makes it impossible that the papacy is Antichrist? Or, if you agree, why? 

I am going to begin to study this out a bit so I appreciate anyone's input. 

Last second edit: I do not think its enough to remark that they are "a" antichrist. On that we can all agree. It's quite another thing to say they are THE Antichrist. 

RB


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 26, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Last second edit: I do not think its enough to remark that they are "a" antichrist. On that we can all agree. It's quite another thing to say they are THE Antichrist.
> 
> RB



And, therein lies the problem. Most who disagree with the statement of the papacy being THE Antichrist I assume do so because it necessitates a certain type of eschatological view. How could one be a pre-millenialist, or a preterist, for that matter, and still believe that the pope is THE Antichrist mentioned in Revelation. The statement seems to be way too narrow about an issue that is uncertain, at best.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 26, 2007)

That old fella in the funny hat seems a lot more benign than the world of Islam.

Could it be that our confessions were, in part, shaped by the times that they were written...or is that not kosher to say here?

..And if so, at what interval do we review and revise them?


----------



## Herald (Sep 26, 2007)

Initially I had a problem with the 1689's statement on the issue, but that was due to residual dispensationalism in my own life more than anything else. The more I dwell on the topic the more I find myself in agreement with the framers of the LBC.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 26, 2007)

I'm a preterist so I don't see the pope as the anti-Christ. I certainly understand why folks in the 16th century felt that way. I would have drawn the same conclusion. However, I see drawing that conclusion after the canon was sealed is no different than looking for the antichrist in today's headlines, which the bulk of the church is doing. I believe there is always a spirit of anti-Christ. If there was a particular incarnation of the anti-Christ then I believe it was probably Nero or a prominent general around the time of the fall of Jerusalem.

I will also repeat - after everyone on the PB, Joe Ratzinger is the man I would most like to have a beer with.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 26, 2007)

Go for it, Bob. And let us know if you bring him 'round to the PB way of seeing things.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 26, 2007)

The man can hold a lot more Franzi's than I can so I'll have to rely on logic and winsomeness. Getting him fractured would never work. Never try and sway a German beer drinker with alcohol, you wouldn't be able to afford it.


----------



## CDM (Sep 26, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> That old fella in the funny hat seems a lot more benign than the world of Islam.
> 
> Could it be that our confessions were, in part, shaped by the times that they were written...or is that not kosher to say here?
> 
> ..And if so, at what interval do we review and revise them?





> That old fella in the funny hat seems a lot more benign than the world of Islam.



Yes, he seems that way now. Much power has been taken from him. He has, in many ways, been defanged. The powers that be that plan and cause wars (performed by Muslims in your example) are the darkest and most bitter evil not the manipulated bullet sponges that rush out on to the field.



> Could it be that our confessions were, in part, shaped by the times that they were written...or is that not kosher to say here?



Yes, that could be. But when you read their many writings using biblical reasoning, coupled with historically thorough research you tend to change your opinion to these men believed the Papacy is the Antichrist based upon solid biblical grounds. Unless you are a futurist.



> ..And if so, at what interval do we review and revise them?



Rebut their arguments with your own. What are they? No need to comment if your answer is "Don't know" or "Nicolae Carpathia".


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 26, 2007)

All right guys, I am hearing the persecution of the age made the reformers believe this. I am sorry, but this sounds like a convienient excuse to dismiss it. 

If one holds to another eschatological viewpoint, as the brother mentioned, then that makes a lot of sense why people now reject it. 

Ok, what was the predominant eschatological view in that period? Certainly wasn't preterist, and def. not premill. Was it postmill or amill or something different? I am genuinely asking, I don't know.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 26, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Ok, what was the predominant eschatological view in that period? Certainly wasn't preterist, and def. not premill. Was it postmill or amill or something different? I am geninely asking, I don't know.



Iain Murray, in "Puritan Hope", argues it was postmillenianism. But I think it is fair to say that the great millenial debates had not developed into camps as we see them today.


----------



## Theogenes (Sep 26, 2007)

Geoff,
Check out J.A. Wylie's essay on the Papacy as Antichrist: The Papacy is the Antichrist

It's important to understand that the reformers and puritans who held this view didn't think that one specific pope was THE Antichrist but rather the Papacy as a whole. Read Wylie's argument. See also Thomas Manton's 13 sermons on 2Thess2 and Turretin's 7th Disputation as to why the papacy is Antichrist.

Jim


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 26, 2007)

Theogenes said:


> Geoff,
> Check out J.A. Wylie's essay on the Papacy as Antichrist: The Papacy is the Antichrist
> 
> It's important to understand that the reformers and puritans who held this view didn't think that one specific pope was THE Antichrist but rather the Papacy as a whole. Read Wylie's argument. See also Thomas Manton's 13 sermons on 2Thess2 and Turretin's 7th Disputation as to why the papacy is Antichrist.
> ...



Thanks for the recommendations. I have Wylie's works and have skimmed it. I will read it more in-depth. And...you just gave me a good reason to buy more books! 

I don't have anything by Manton or Turretin.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 26, 2007)

Theogenes said:


> Geoff,
> Check out J.A. Wylie's essay on the Papacy as Antichrist: The Papacy is the Antichrist
> 
> It's important to understand that the reformers and puritans who held this view didn't think that one specific pope was THE Antichrist but rather the Papacy as a whole. Read Wylie's argument. See also Thomas Manton's 13 sermons on 2Thess2 and Turretin's 7th Disputation as to why the papacy is Antichrist.
> ...




Jim, this is a great point. In fact the rcc herself uses this as an arguement when they are accused of having false popes. They distinguish the person from the office. The papacy itself is infallible when speaking from the chair of Peter, not the man. Therefore these reformers used the rcc's own truth against them...


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 26, 2007)

I hold to the Confessional view.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 26, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Theogenes said:
> 
> 
> > Geoff,
> ...



Manton is available online here and Turretin is available online here.


----------



## Theogenes (Sep 26, 2007)

Geoff,
Here's a couple of other resources:
Amazon.com: The Antichrist: Books: Baron Porcelli,Oral, Ph.D. Collins

And a book by Samuel Cassel called Christ and Antichrist.

I studied this topic for about two years a few years ago and I have a large stack of books as well as dozens of articles on the topic. When you look in the writings of reformers and puritans you find this belief. I don't think you can find one that didn't hold to this view. 

Another amazing book is by H.G. Guinness called "Romanism and the Reformation" - you can find it at this site: Historicism.com (LastDays.ca)
Here's Guinness's book on line: 
Romanism and the Reformation, by H. Grattan Guinness @ Historicism.com

Jim


----------



## CDM (Sep 26, 2007)

Also check out Berean Beacon.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 26, 2007)

Theogenes said:


> And a book by Samuel Cassel called Christ and Antichrist.



Also available online here.


----------



## KMK (Sep 26, 2007)

If you dare to tear down the divine's belief because you see some flaws in their argument, you must then make sure that your own belief does not have as many or more flaws than theirs.

So far, I have never heard of an argument for a different antichrist that doesn't have its own major flaws. I will humbly stick with the divines on this one until someone brings a *compelling* argument for someone or something else.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 26, 2007)

> I'm a preterist so I don't see the pope as the anti-Christ. I certainly understand why folks in the 16th century felt that way. I would have drawn the same conclusion. However, I see drawing that conclusion after the canon was sealed is no different than looking for the antichrist in today's headlines, which the bulk of the church is doing. I believe there is always a spirit of anti-Christ. If there was a particular incarnation of the anti-Christ then I believe it was probably Nero or a prominent general around the time of the fall of Jerusalem.





The main problem I have with the Historicist interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 is that the conclusion is one that the original audience would not have reached (nor anyone else in the church for hundreds of years). For that reason I cannot accept this as an exegetically tenable argument. Nevertheless, it was held by the Westminster Divines and is the position of many learned men today. 

I think it is a shame that it was put in the WCF, as it excludes many good men from holding office in denominations that adhere to the original 25:6. Presently, I will not accept office in my own denomination as I cannot (in good conscience) agree to this as being Scriptural.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 26, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The main problem I have with the Historicist interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 is that the conclusion is one that the original audience would not have reached (nor anyone else in the church for hundreds of years).



I always thought the reference was to 1 John 2



> 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.



which could easily not come to fruition for many hundred years since it was future from the time John was writing toward the end of the 1st century.


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The main problem I have with the Historicist interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 is that the conclusion is one that the original audience would not have reached (nor anyone else in the church for hundreds of years). For that reason I cannot accept this as an exegetically tenable argument. Nevertheless, it was held by the Westminster Divines and is the position of many learned men today.



This is why it is best to call it the historicist "application" instead of "interpretation." The words meant something to the first readers, and I'm sure our reformers accepted this as a part of historical and grammatical exegesis. To the original audience it allayed the fear that the day of the Lord had already come by insisting that the apostasy must take place first. Now it should be obvious from the very nature of what they understood Paul to be saying that they could not reach a conclusion as to the identification of the man of sin, for his manifestation was necessarily future with respect to themselves. Nevertheless, they understood Paul's message well enough that the day of the Lord would not come until the manifestation of the man of sin.

I highly recommend Wylie's book, or even Paisley's summary of it. The principles by which antichrist is identified must be the same as those whereby we discern Jesus is the Christ of prophecy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 27, 2007)

> The words meant something to the first readers, and I'm sure our reformers accepted this as a part of historical and grammatical exegesis. To the original audience it allayed the fear that the day of the Lord had already come by insisting that the apostasy must take place first. Now it should be obvious from the very nature of what they understood Paul to be saying that they could not reach a conclusion as to the identification of the man of sin, for his manifestation was necessarily future with respect to themselves. Nevertheless, they understood Paul's message well enough that the day of the Lord would not come until the manifestation of the man of sin.



True, but the identification of the man of sin as being the papacy is one that would have been foreign to the original audience. And what makes historicist's so confident that their exegesis and application is right, so much so, that it is enshrined in a confession of faith? Such doubtful things should not be made a test of orthodoxy.


> I highly recommend Wylie's book, or even Paisley's summary of it. The principles by which antichrist is identified must be the same as those whereby we discern Jesus is the Christ of prophecy.



I am familiar with all the arguments (this was a position I held for 6 or 7 years), but I am not convinced; nevertheless, I will have to dig out Wylie again.


----------



## CDM (Sep 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The main problem I have with the Historicist interpretation of 2 Thess. 2 is that the conclusion is one that the original audience would not have reached (nor anyone else in the church for hundreds of years). For that reason I cannot accept this as an exegetically tenable argument. Nevertheless, it was held by the Westminster Divines and is the position of many learned men today.
> ...



Very well said, brother. 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> > The words meant something to the first readers, and I'm sure our reformers accepted this as a part of historical and grammatical exegesis. To the original audience it allayed the fear that the day of the Lord had already come by insisting that the apostasy must take place first. Now it should be obvious from the very nature of what they understood Paul to be saying that they could not reach a conclusion as to the identification of the man of sin, for his manifestation was necessarily future with respect to themselves. Nevertheless, they understood Paul's message well enough that the day of the Lord would not come until the manifestation of the man of sin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm still waiting to hear [from anyone] a counter claim to the Reformers position that the Papacy indeed is the only institution _in history_ that can rightly be said to have fulfilled the Antichrist prophecies.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 27, 2007)

Brethren, 

Is it not true that the Thessalonians knew what restrained before the Antichrist was to be revealed? Certainly they knew, for the Holy Spirit says that they knew. And when it/he would be taken out of the way, then he (Antichrist) would be revealed. 

This is a clear and markable time and event so that there would be no doubt as to the identification of Antichrist. And John by the Holy Spirit tells us that the mystery of inquiity was already at work in his time. 

From my meager study so far I have learned that Christians, and not just those of the period of the reformation, understood the restraining influence was secular Rome. If this be true, however we work out other things, the papacy is Antichrist because that is the papacy was revealed when Rome was taken out of the way.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> If this be true, however we work out other things, the papacy is Antichrist because that is the papacy was revealed when Rome was taken out of the way.



How so?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 27, 2007)

> The principles by which antichrist is identified must be the same as those whereby we discern Jesus is the Christ of prophecy.



That is not a fair comparison as the Christ of prophecy was revealed before the canon of Scripture closed. Whereas, historicists are saying that the papacy (which they assume to be the personal antichrist/man of sin) was supposedly revealed after the canon of Scripture was complete. This means that they are imposing on people a doctrine which was foreign to the apostolic church - as nobody knew about the papacy being the man of sin for hundreds of years.



> I'm still waiting to hear [from anyone] a counter claim to the Reformers position that the Papacy indeed is the only institution in history that can rightly be said to have fulfilled the Antichrist prophecies.



I do not believe that sound exegesis of 2 Thess 2 allows one to come to the conclusion that the man of sin is an institution rather than a single individual. Paul calls him 'the man of sin' (not the institution of sin), 'the son of perdition' (not the instiution of perdition), 'who opposes and exalts himself' (an individual), and says that 'he sits' 'showing himself' that 'he may be revealed in his own time' (again an individual is spoken of, not an institution) and that 'the lawless one will be revealed' (notice an individual will be revealed away, not an institution).

If we are going to say that the man of sin is the papacy as an institution, then at what point did the papacy become the man of sin? What about the early popes - who lived after the collapse of the Roman Empire - who were godly men?

Anyway, I have too much work to get on with, so I will pull out of the discussion and leave the rest of you men to it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 27, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> The man can hold a lot more Franzi's than I can so I'll have to rely on logic and winsomeness. Getting him fractured would never work. Never try and sway a German beer drinker with alcohol, you wouldn't be able to afford it.



Bawb,
If you ever wanna try to sway me about anything you're more than welcome to try. Come on by. Got lots of German and Dutch in me.  LOL


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 27, 2007)

KMK said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > If this be true, however we work out other things, the papacy is Antichrist because that is the papacy was revealed when Rome was taken out of the way.
> ...



The papacy appeared in its place. Secular Rome went down, and papal Rome rose to power.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 27, 2007)

Rather than put forth my own view of eschatology over and against the Confessions, I would rather speak to the idea of confessionalism in the first place.

The Confessions should speak where the Bible speaks and no more. Earlier there was a thread in which we agreed that to be confessional is to be able to say that if the Confession puts forth a doctrine, it is a Biblical doctrine.

Whether or not the Papacy is THE Anti-Christ goes beyond what the Scripture teaches. You cannot piece together a biblical argument from Scripture without pointing to historical and current events regarding the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. I certainly think it might be true, but you cannot construct an argument to say that this is what the Bible teaches. Most of us, as non-dispensationalists, will bemoan the "newspaper exegesis" that goes on today, but the construction of the Reformers is no better.

The Reformers may very well have been right on this point, but I would still maintain that this does not belong in the Confessions for that reason.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Whether or not the Papacy is THE Anti-Christ goes beyond what the Scripture teaches. *You cannot piece together a biblical argument from Scripture without pointing to historical and current events regarding the rise of the Roman Catholic Church.* I certainly think it might be true, but you cannot construct an argument to say that this is what the Bible teaches. Most of us, as non-dispensationalists, will bemoan the "newspaper exegesis" that goes on today, but the construction of the Reformers is no better.
> 
> The Reformers may very well have been right on this point, but I would still maintain that this does not belong in the Confessions for that reason.



Good point and I would say that the preterist does the same thing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 27, 2007)

> Whether or not the Papacy is THE Anti-Christ goes beyond what the Scripture teaches. You cannot piece together a biblical argument from Scripture without pointing to historical and current events regarding the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. I certainly think it might be true, but you cannot construct an argument to say that this is what the Bible teaches. Most of us, as non-dispensationalists, will bemoan the "newspaper exegesis" that goes on today, but the construction of the Reformers is no better.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > The principles by which antichrist is identified must be the same as those whereby we discern Jesus is the Christ of prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fair comparison as the Christ of prophecy was revealed before the canon of Scripture closed. Whereas, historicists are saying that the papacy (which they assume to be the personal antichrist/man of sin) was supposedly revealed after the canon of Scripture was complete. This means that they are imposing on people a doctrine which was foreign to the apostolic church - as nobody knew about the papacy being the man of sin for hundreds of years.



If Scripture testifies to something which will happen beyond itself, the fulfilment must necessarily take place after the close of the canon. However one interprets Daniel from the evangelical perspective, there are historical fulfilments which must have taken place after the close of the OT canon, and which the people of Daniel's time could not have identified. Now, from the perspective of Paul and his readers, the apostasy was yet future. Hence there is no necessity for his readership to have been aware of the specific entity to which his description was applicable.

How does one know if he is a Christian? He won't find the names of all the saints written in Scripture. He must of necessity look at the *marks* of a Christian as delineated in Scripture, and then examine himself to see whether he manifests those marks. This is inevitably a post-canonical activity.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> The Reformers may very well have been right on this point, but I would still maintain that this does not belong in the Confessions for that reason.



What you are suggesting would require us to negate all the historical references found in the reformed confessions, especially those aimed against Papists and Anabaptists. Further, it would mean that a confession could not speak against the particular errors of the time in which it was framed, which would nullify one of the great strengths of having a confession.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> If Scripture testifies to something which will happen beyond itself, the fulfilment must necessarily take place after the close of the canon. However one interprets Daniel from the evangelical perspective, there are historical fulfilments which must have taken place after the close of the OT canon, *and which the people of Daniel's time could not have identified*. Now, from the perspective of Paul and his readers, the apostasy was yet future. Hence there is no necessity for his readership to have been aware of the specific entity to which his description was applicable.



I have wondered about the elevation of 'audience relevance' above all other principles. Aren't there times in the Bible when the first readers had no idea about the full meaning of certain passages. Like all of the types and shadows of the OT. Can we really expect the original audience to fully understand that Hagar was an allegory for Sinai and Sarah was an allegory for Jerusalem? 

If the antichrist, for example, was yet future for the original readers, wouldn't we expect that they would be about as in the dark as Israel was? But as the time is fulfilled the subsequent audiences would have greater understanding.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > The Reformers may very well have been right on this point, but I would still maintain that this does not belong in the Confessions for that reason.
> ...



Perhaps this would argue for Don's view that the confessions should be rewritten to fit the times.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2007)

KMK said:


> Perhaps this would argue for Don's view that the confessions should be rewritten to fit the times.



I think Don's view is that the Confession should not contain anything specific to any time which cannot also be found in Scripture. The Confession could not even speak against transubstantiation, if this were the case.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

> If Scripture testifies to something which will happen beyond itself, the fulfilment must necessarily take place after the close of the canon. However one interprets Daniel from the evangelical perspective, there are historical fulfilments which must have taken place after the close of the OT canon, and which the people of Daniel's time could not have identified.



Yes the OT canon, not the Biblical canon.


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > If Scripture testifies to something which will happen beyond itself, the fulfilment must necessarily take place after the close of the canon. However one interprets Daniel from the evangelical perspective, there are historical fulfilments which must have taken place after the close of the OT canon, and which the people of Daniel's time could not have identified.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the OT canon, not the Biblical canon.



This still defeats your hermeneutical rule that the people to whom the writing was directed should have been able to identify that to which it was referring. But even if we broaden this rule to include the biblical canon, this extended corpus does not tell us what is meant by some of the symbols employed in Daniel's visions. So we are left to identify what is meant by the "south" and the "north," etc.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

> This still defeats your hermeneutical rule that the people to whom the writing was directed should have been able to identify that to which it was referring. But even if we broaden this rule to include the biblical canon, this extended corpus does not tell us what is meant by some of the symbols employed in Daniel's visions. So we are left to identify what is meant by the "south" and the "north," etc.



It could be argued however that Daniel and 2 Thess are two completely different types of Biblical literature; the latter is an epistle directed to a particular church in need of pastoral help. Reading this they could have concluded that Paul was talking about a Roman Emperor, but their is no way that they would have come to the conclusion that Paul was predicting the rise of the papacy. Furthermore, in Daniel's prophecy the readers would have known that he was taking about future nations that would arise by using the interpretative principles that Daniel himself employs when interpreting Nebuchaddnezzar's dream.

The problem for those who want to make believing in a papal man of sin (why do people assume that antichrist and the man of sin are the same thing, this is often asserted, but rarely proved?) a test of orthodoxy is that it is a doctrine foreign to the apostolic church, which is being imposed on the consciences of modern Christians. Are proponents of this view saying that it was okay to be a minister in the apostolic church and not believe that the papacy was the man of sin, but now it is unacceptable to even allow a man to serve as a deacon for not believing in it.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this would argue for Don's view that the confessions should be rewritten to fit the times.
> ...



You misunderstand me. The Confessions ought to address modern errors if the bible addresses modern errors. If the Bible says that God is a Trinity, then address false teachers who don't believe in the Trinity.

What I am against is exegeting the Scriptures specifically in light of something in modern times, which cannot very well be verified. There's a difference.


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It could be argued however that Daniel and 2 Thess are two completely different types of Biblical literature; the latter is an epistle directed to a particular church in need of pastoral help. Reading this they could have concluded that Paul was talking about a Roman Emperor, but their is no way that they would have come to the conclusion that Paul was predicting the rise of the papacy.



I suppose one could argue this way, but it wouldn't be convincing. Regardless of the genre, both talk about something future to the writing, and both require a fulfilment beyond the reader's present acquaintance.


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

elnwood said:


> What I am against is exegeting the Scriptures specifically in light of something in modern times, which cannot very well be verified. There's a difference.



As noted earlier, the historicist claim is best understood in terms of application, not interpretation. The passage should be interpreted for itself. If, after interpreting the passage, one is convinced it is speaking of something which shall emerge in the future, then there can be no objection to applying the principles of the passage to an apostasy yet future to author and readership.

OTOH, I would also warn against interpreting the passage with a view to making it irrelevant to a future condition of the church, when it is clear as day that the apostle's intention was to relieve the fears of the Thessalonians with respect to the coming of Christ.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > It could be argued however that Daniel and 2 Thess are two completely different types of Biblical literature; the latter is an epistle directed to a particular church in need of pastoral help. Reading this they could have concluded that Paul was talking about a Roman Emperor, but their is no way that they would have come to the conclusion that Paul was predicting the rise of the papacy.
> ...




Sorry but I don't think I have explained myself properly - hence the confusion. My point is that when we come to examine the Scriptures - and especially a letter to a church - it is a principle of Protestant exegesis that we think about what the text meant to the original audience. Therefore, on the basis of this principle, how would the Thessalonians have been most likely to interpret the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:

1. Paul was talking about a future Roman Emperor.

2. Paul was predicting the rise of the Papacy.

3. Paul was predicting the emergence of a futuristic world leader.

The problem with 2 is that nobody in the church would have been able to interpret this passage of Scripture for hundreds of years after the Biblical canon closed. Consequently, option 1 is the interpretive option most in line with sound Biblical exegesis, as the original audience are most likely to have thought that Paul was anticipating the emergence of a tyrannical Roman Emperor (such as Nero).


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Sorry but I don't think I have explained myself properly - hence the confusion. My point is that when we come to examine the Scriptures - and especially a letter to a church - it is a principle of Protestant exegesis that we think about what the text meant to the original audience. Therefore, on the basis of this principle, how would the Thessalonians have been most likely to interpret the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:
> 
> 1. Paul was talking about a future Roman Emperor.
> 
> ...



How about, 4. None of the above. The readers understood the passage to be referring to something future to them. This is what assured them the day of the Lord had not yet taken place. All we have in the passage is certain marks whereby to identify the man of sin whenever it is he makes his appearance. His identification must of necessity be a post-canonical activity, seeing the canon nowhere provides the identification for us. This requires us to examine post-canonical history in order to ascertain the identity of what the apostle referred to. This is perfectly in keeping with the principles of Protestant exegesis.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but I don't think I have explained myself properly - hence the confusion. My point is that when we come to examine the Scriptures - and especially a letter to a church - it is a principle of Protestant exegesis that we think about what the text meant to the original audience. Therefore, on the basis of this principle, how would the Thessalonians have been most likely to interpret the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:
> ...




Point 4 still presents us with the problem that the papal man of sin view was a doctrine foreign to apostolic Christianity, which means that none of the apostles would have been able to hold office in Presbyterian churches requiring subscription to WCF 25:6. Personally, I believe that the man of sin was revealed prior to AD 70 (and prior to the close of the canon, which, in my opinion, was also before AD 70) and that a partial preterist understanding of Revelation makes it possible to infer that Nero was the man of sin. However, I realise that my interpretation is fallible, and therefore do not want to make the matter a test of orthodoxy, and that is why I take exception to the doctrine of a papal man of sin being included in a confession of faith. After all, why are historicists so confident that their (fallible) interpretation of post-canonical history is correct that they want to exclude other orthodox, Reformed men from holding ecclesiastical office?


----------



## MW (Oct 1, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Point 4 still presents us with the problem that the papal man of sin view was a doctrine foreign to apostolic Christianity, which means that none of the apostles would have been able to hold office in Presbyterian churches requiring subscription to WCF 25:6.



But then they couldn't have subscribed to the various statements of the Confession which are directed against post-canonical errors, e.g. transubstantiation. And if 25:6 is understood properly, it is really only guarding against an ecclesiastical error, not making an eschatological statement. Eph. 4 teaches there will be dogmatic progress. Systematics is by nature a post-canonical activity.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Point 4 still presents us with the problem that the papal man of sin view was a doctrine foreign to apostolic Christianity, which means that none of the apostles would have been able to hold office in Presbyterian churches requiring subscription to WCF 25:6.
> ...




But transubstantiation is also a non-apostolic doctrine, therefore the apostles could have subscribed to statements against it as it was a doctrine they did not know.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Oct 7, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I guess this is the best forum for this topic. I am writing not to contend for the papacy being Antichrist but to understand why reformed people seem to reject this idea today. For probably all of us (Baptist or no) the indentification of the papacy/popes as Antichrirst are in our confessions of faith and was the opinion of the many reformers, et. of the theologians we have come to love and respect.
> 
> ...



I do believe "The Antichrist" the bible speaks of Is the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. I also believe if someone holds an eschatological view other than Amillennialism it will be hard to see. If one can temporally lay aside and particular End Time view, it becomes plain to see. The enemy is very deceiving and hides very well in the Roman catholic Church, and will distort many doctrines not only in the Roman church but also in the Protestant church. I believe the Puritans had it right.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2007)

Dennis1963 said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Hey all,
> ...



Don't you mean to say "historicist" instead of "amillennial?" I know men who are pre-, post, and a- who believe the papacy is the antichrist. Not to mention the fact that the Catholic church is officially amillennial.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Oct 7, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Dennis1963 said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe "The Antichrist" the bible speaks of Is the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. I also believe if someone holds an eschatological view other than Amillennialism it will be hard to see. If one can temporally lay aside and particular End Time view, it becomes plain to see. The enemy is very deceiving and hides very well in the Roman catholic Church, and will distort many doctrines not only in the Roman church but also in the Protestant church. I believe the Puritans had it right.
> ...


 Yes I agree, I also know people who are pre-mil, post-mil. But when certain passages are presented they disagree, and state this is during the tribulation period (seven year trib-period). Most Roman Catholics I talk with believe in post-mill, totally disagree with the pre-mill and are not quick to consider the Amill position. But when you say it is actually a catholic (universal christian church) belief I agree, but Roman Catholicism is different. I have actually had some debates on this with Roman catholics. *Here is an example:* *A Roman catholic :* Or the antichrist is the emperor, or the emperor is a type of the antichrist. Of course there are many antichrists (1 John 2:18) and the spirit of antichrist was already in the world at the time John was writing (1 John 4:3), in earlier posts he claims that the Antichrist is of Pagan Rome, not the church.  My reply: You mean was it the emperor or the Pope? The Roman Catholic Church would teach that this harlot and great city refer to pagan Rome and the emperors. Even to pagan Rome at the time of the emperor, which became drunk with the blood of the saints. But chapter 17 in Revelation indicates clearly that this refers to Rome after the emperors. Revelation 13:1 1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. Revelation 17:10-11, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven. seven heads does not merely pertain to seven hills, comprehended within the walls of Rome, but also pertains to seven kings, that is sovereign governments, rather that specific individuals. Five forms of government have already run their course: kings, mayors, councils, governors and dictators. The sixth form of government was already in place when John wrote, for it is irrefutable that the emperors reigned at that time. during their reign this would not transpire, but under the seventh head of Rome. As far as worldly rule is concerned, the beast would come after the emperors, therefore the beast is the seventh head, and be simultaneously also the eighth king as far as supreme world rulership which he claims for himself relative to the souls of men. This is proves that the reference here is not to pagan Rome, but to Rome under the dominion of the Pope. Also this seventh head will not step aside as quickly as the other heads, the previous forms were for each time only a short duration. But this form of government will stay for some time....42 months or 1260 days. since this refers to years this can only be applicable to the Pope, Revelation 17:12-13 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour.
These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast. This didn't occur during the times of the emperors but occurred when the empire was destroyed by the Goths, the Lombards and other pagan nations, which divided the empire into ten kingdoms. The beast rose and gained possession of Rome, The only one to accomplish this was the Pope. Even when these other nations ruled Italy they did not have their seat of government in Rome, but they did in fact yeild their power to the Pope who had his seat in the government of Rome (the city of seven hills), they desired to be confirmed and sanctioned by him. The executed his will in doing battle against Christ and His church.----This is the Antichrist, who after the emperors had their seat in government and territory in Rome and therefore in the world. After the destruction of the empire the ten kings gained power, and yielded it to none other than the Pope. This further strengthens the point that the reference is not to pagan Rome, but to Rome under the dominion of the Pope. Who i might add will perform all that is in Revelation 13 and 17. Look at this, Revelation 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. and revelation 13:15-17 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Compare the Popes activities to this, you will see a fulfillment of prophecy very clear. Who has opposed the true church? Who has murdered true professors of the truth for their witness? How many hundreds of thousands have already lost their lives by order and direction of the Pope? Who has become drunk with the blood of the saints? All who did not confess to be Roman Catholic, who did not acknowledge the Pope as the head of the church, who do not go to mass, who did not carry a chaplet or cross, ect. ect... Must be expelled and are not able to practice their business, profession, or trade. They were all subject to opposition, tortures, violence, monasteries, prisons, galleys, the gallows, theft of property, and deprivation of children. This should bear witness to the entire world, who the Pope is! This does interfere with both the pre-mill and post-mill doctrines. But it is what many Puritans believed and taught.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2007)

Again, don't you mean "historicist," to be more precise?


----------



## Dennis1963 (Oct 7, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Again, don't you mean "historicist," to be more precise?


 Yes after taking a quick look at the definition, I believe you are right, but I do not see any difference. ------consider this, If the last post is accurate, that is what the Puritans taught and believed, wouldn't it be dangerous for the Pope and his church of Rome to be Amill? By teaching the Amill doctrine it would only expose itself. Meaning, to teach that the millennium is now in heaven and we are in the tribulation period (presently) who would this Antichrist be? Especially since it is such an accurate reflection! (Ever read the Foxe's book of Martyrs?)


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2007)

Dennis1963 said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Again, don't you mean "historicist," to be more precise?
> ...



Probably. I remember reading Augustine on the millennium, and knew that the RCC implicitly adopted Augustine. I would be interested to see how they got around that.




> By teaching the Amill doctrine it would only expose itself. Meaning, to teach that the millennium is now in heaven and we are in the tribulation period (presently) who would this Antichrist be? Especially since it is such an accurate reflection! (Ever read the Foxe's book of Martyrs?)



Well, I have problems with a "spiritually reigning now" reading of the Revelation 20, but yes, if that is true (hypothetically), it cuold be problematic for Rome.

However, I have seen an argument that amillennialism and Romanism coincide, but it was a bit speculative.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Oct 7, 2007)

The mark of the beast (666) even points to the Pope. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of John. Irenaeus arrived at the fact that the number 666 was in Latin (Lateinos) "Latin Speaking man". i cant spell the Greek word. Irenaeus concluded that the Antichrist would come from Italy and from the Latin church. A portion of Italy had a king prior to the birth of Christ, his name was Latinus. The portion of Italy that surrounds Rome is called Latinum, after this Latinus and the language spoken there was called Latin. Latinus is written in Greek as Lateinos, and these letters represent the number 666, which is a fact. It points to Rome and her Latin church and her bishop. The Pope still uses the Latin language in directives and decrees. Through the entire world the Mass is still performed in Latin language, (In some places now they use different native languages, but the Latin is still used) which is taught to be viewed as an extraordinary providence of God, this alone proves it. The RCC and the Pope to not see or accept this shouldn't be any supprise, if they did it would put an end to popery, but this will continue until the end. The RCC also will say that "Latinus" must be written without and "e" therefore it will not be equivalent to the number 666. But keep in mind John did not write in Latin, but in Greek. Latinus in Latin, is Lateinos in Greek. Irenaeus being a Greek would know how to write this in Greek. So Antichrist must have his seat and territory in Rome. This dose not even touch the scripture proofs.----Just thought I would share this, it is interesting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2007)

> But keep in mind John did not write in Latin, but in Greek. Latinus in Latin, is Lateinos in Greek.



I am quite aware of that. I have even read Revelation in Greek. Anyway, what you say *could* be possible, but I have seen about 20 different numerical theories on who the beast is qua 666. Each one seems better than the previous. I am dubious about hanging too much weight on it. I don't doubt that someone can force the numbers to fit a theory, and who knows?, they might be correct. But I don't find those kinds of proof compelling.


----------

