# Do You Believe the Papacy to be the Anti-Christ?



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Simple Question. 

(Like anything on the PB could be simple )




> *Westminster Confession (1646)
> *
> 25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.





> *1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
> *
> 26.4. 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.


----------



## lynnie

Ummm....

I guess I'd say he is one of many antichrists, but I'm an amil Riddlebargerite and probably we will see in the future a culmination of all the antichrists in a final most awful one. I'm speculating he'll be Islamic, as Islam and Mohammed is even more antiChrist than the Catholic church ever was. Perhaps the Pope and Islam will shack up in the spiritual bed together.

I appreciate you posting this as I now realize I have a disagreement with the WCF here. I will look forward to reading the replies.


----------



## ReformedChapin

I think that the old papacy certainly was I'm not too sure about the new one.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The American revision of 1789 took out of the Westminster Confession of 1646 this notation as the Pope as Anti-Christ.

As far as the "new one" if anything the Popes since 1563 (Council of Trent) and 1870 (Vatican I) have moved in a direction that more blatantly fits 2 Thess 2.


----------



## historyb

I believe the pope is, or at least the office of pope.


----------



## Poimen

I voted for the third option only because 2 Thessalonians 2 does not speak of the Antichrist but rather the "man of sin (lawless one)". In other words one has to assume that he should be identified as or be equal to the Antichrist (1 John 2,4; 2 John 7) which is not readily apparent.

And, for the record, no I do not believe that the pope and/or papacy is the Antichrist.


----------



## kvanlaan

Perhaps 'an' anti-Christ and not 'the' anti-Christ, as an userper of the office. It does seem to fit in many ways - the notes in my Geneva talk about "a throne set up clean contrary to Christ's glory, wherein that wicked man shall sit and transfer all things that appertain to God, to himself, and many shall fall away from God to him" and "By speaking of one, he pointed out the body of the tyrannous and persecuting Church".


----------



## jambo

I believe the papacy to be anti-Christ but I do not believe the papacy to be _the_ anti-Christ.

Whilst in the Irish Republic the local church formed a committee to write a church constitution. The committee was made of 4 men from within the church and all local believers along with the church planter (English), pastor (Irish) and myself (Scottish). We adopted the 1689 baptist confession and as leaders we suggested removal of the paragraph which stated the pope was the ani-Christ. 

None of the local believers would accept its removal however. I was amazed as each local believer was converted from Catholicism, their families were all practicing RCs and much of their culture revolved asround the RC church. Also being in a small Irish town having a paragraph about the pope being the anti-Christ might cause problems. So we kept it in at the request of the local believers.

As I said in the first line, the papacy fits the description but I do not believe it to be the anti-Christ. It is a weakening church that now recognises some RC countries as missionfields themselves. ie France, Spain etc


----------



## NaphtaliPress

According to my notes, the PCUSA retained it over a century until the 1903 changes.


Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The American revision of 1789 took out of the Westminster Confession of 1646 this notation as the Pope as Anti-Christ.
> 
> As far as the "new one" if anything the Popes since 1563 (Council of Trent) and 1870 (Vatican I) have moved in a direction that more blatantly fits 2 Thess 2.


----------



## OPC'n

I believe that Nero was the Anti-Christ.


----------



## Rich Koster

I believe that the whole of scripture shows the Papacy as anti Christ

The Pope can only forgive someone who sins against him. He makes a blasphemous claim as "Vicar of Christ".


----------



## DMcFadden

Aw shucks! You mean I haveta give up telling everyone that Obama is THE Antichrist?

I lean towards Dr. Riddlebarger's explanation here and would need to parse my words carefully to avoid appearing unconfessional.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Vicar=Latin
Vice=English
Anti=Greek

Anti=Vicar


----------



## Rich Koster

Vicarius Filii Dei If I remember correctly.


----------



## Rangerus

I agree with many on here, the papacy is anti-Christ. It even perhaps will someday be the office of the anti-Christ. 

I believe that lawlessness will continue to get worse and worse, and people who have stopped going to churches where they heard the gospel are wide open to the cults and the "isms" of our day. 

Here is what Wikipedia says.

*Polycarp* warned the Philippians that everyone that preached false doctrine was an antichrist.

*Irenaeus* speculated that it was “very probable” the Antichrist might be called Lateinos, which is Greek for “Latin Man”.

*John Chrysostom* warned against speculations and old wives' tales about the Antichrist, saying, “Let us not therefore enquire into these things”. He preached that by knowing Paul's description of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians Christians would avoid deception.

*Augustine of Hippo* wrote “it is uncertain in what temple [the Antichrist] shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church.”

*Hippolytus of Rome* held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.

*Tertullian* held that the Roman Empire was the restraining force written about by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. The fall of Rome and the disintegration of the ten provinces of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms were to make way for the Antichrist.

*Pope Gregory I* wrote in A.D. 597, “I say with confidence that whoever calls or desires to call himself ‘universal priest’ in self-exaltation of himself is a precursor of the Antichrist.”

*Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims* wrote in A.D. 991, "What do you estimate this to be, reverend fathers? When you see him sitting on a lofty throne glittering in purple and gold, what do you estimate this to be, I say? Without a doubt, if he lacks love, and is only swelled up and lifted up, must he not be the Antichrist, 'sitting in the temple of God, and also showing himself as God'?"


----------



## Pergamum

I believe that confessions of faith ought to not speak on secondary issues, including eschatological speculation.

That being said, the Pope fits the bill when it comes to the spirit of Antichrist.


----------



## Herald

I would have answered "other" but that option wasn't available. 

I believe the papacy is the spirit of Antichrist but not THE Antichrist.


----------



## timmopussycat

Herald said:


> I would have answered "other" but that option wasn't available.
> 
> I believe the papacy is the spirit of Antichrist but not THE Antichrist.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

*The Answer of Luther and Calvin to this is "YES!"*

Is the Pope the Antichrist?


Here is Martin Luther's answer:

"Since the Pope is a heretic, and idolater, Antichrist, and the red whore reeking with the blood of the pious, therefore we will not admit him into our presence...In fine, to make a treaty between us and the Pope, is to make a treaty between God and Belial. Nothing will come of it..." 

Here's another quote:

Calvin this time--



"Some 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 (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."


----------



## Croghanite

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Is the Pope the Antichrist?
> 
> 
> Here is Martin Luther's answer:
> 
> "Since the Pope is a heretic, and idolater, Antichrist, and the red whore reeking with the blood of the pious, therefore we will not admit him into our presence...In fine, to make a treaty between us and the Pope, is to make a treaty between God and Belial. Nothing will come of it..."
> 
> Here's another quote:
> 
> Calvin this time--
> 
> 
> 
> "Some 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 (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."



Where did you find the Calvin quote?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.


----------



## Pergamum

NOW WAIT A MINUTE....Isn't this a "confessional board" and yet the majority don't follow the confessions on this issue!?!?!?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I follow the argumentation of G.I Williamson.


----------



## Pergamum

So are the confessions then wrong?


----------



## gene_mingo

Pergamum said:


> So are the confessions then wrong?



No, the WCF was amended.


----------



## historyb

Pergamum said:


> NOW WAIT A MINUTE....Isn't this a "confessional board" and yet the majority don't follow the confessions on this issue!?!?!?



Are not there different ones now? The later confessions that come from the earlier ones are not the same anymore, specifically on this issue. I agree with the earlier ones that says the papacy is the anti-Christ.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Pope the Antichrist?
> 
> 
> Here is Martin Luther's answer:
> 
> "Since the Pope is a heretic, and idolater, Antichrist, and the red whore reeking with the blood of the pious, therefore we will not admit him into our presence...In fine, to make a treaty between us and the Pope, is to make a treaty between God and Belial. Nothing will come of it..."
> 
> Here's another quote:
> 
> Calvin this time--
> 
> 
> 
> "Some 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 (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find the Calvin quote?
Click to expand...


Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
Book IV: Chapter 7, section(25).

And following this -- Calvin does in my opinion show that Paul's words in II Thess. 2 do, and must refer to the Papacy.


----------



## eqdj

I would have liked the option of selecting "an" instead of "the".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

historyb said:


> I believe the pope is, or at least the office of pope.



I agree with HistoryB.

-----Added 1/11/2009 at 11:38:22 EST-----



Anton Bruckner said:


> the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.






> (1Jn 2:18) 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.
> 
> (1Jn 2:19) *They went out from us, but they were not of us;* for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
> 
> (1Jn 2:20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
> 
> (1Jn 2:21) I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
> 
> (1Jn 2:22) * Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.*



I have a question concerning this. Doesn't the RC church deny and pronounce an anathema upon all who believe in justification by faith alone? Is that not denying the Person and work of Christ? They deny the Father and the Son in their denial of election. For if any man or angel bring you another gospel let him be accursed. If the RC's are accursed aren't they denying the Father and the Son?



> 1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.



The spirit of anti-Christ is to deny that Christ came in the flesh. It is a denial of his work. They do deny his work and set themselves up as the Thessalonian s passage speaks.


----------



## Davidius

I think John has in mind something much more directly opposed to the incarnation of Christ, probably proto- (or full blown) gnostic heresies, rather than indirect conclusions drawn from their soteriology. The RCC upholds Nicea and Chalcedon, so this doesn't apply to them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Davidius said:


> I think John has in mind something much more directly opposed to the incarnation of Christ, probably proto- (or full blown) gnostic heresies, rather than indirect conclusions drawn from their soteriology. The RCC upholds Nicea and Chalcedon, so this doesn't apply to them.



Actually I agree with some of your assessment. John was addressing the gnostic heresies in this letter so this passage might not be as applicable. 

But the RCC does deny the gospel and sets itself against God and His Word.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Anton Bruckner said:


> the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.



By your argument there is no "the antichrist" just "antichrists". So I would ask it differently. Do you believe the papacy is the "man of sin"?

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 12:24:24 EST-----



Davidius said:


> I think John has in mind something much more directly opposed to the incarnation of Christ, probably proto- (or full blown) gnostic heresies, rather than indirect conclusions drawn from their soteriology. The RCC upholds Nicea and Chalcedon, so this doesn't apply to them.



The issue is specifically related to 2 Thess. 2, not John. Most believe the "man of sin" is the same as "the antichrist". Either way, what do you think about the papacy being the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2?


----------



## DMcFadden

Man, I hope the ECT police don't read this thread! After these comments even J.I. Packer couldn't find a nice word to say about any of us on the back of a book.

BTW, I would suggest that RC Christology is formally orthodox since it subscribes to the orthodox creeds and formulations (including the Chalcedonian Definition). Would that they had stuck with the Canons of the Council of Orange (529). However, RC soteriology and anthropology from the middle ages onwards is suffused with semi-Pelagianism and can hardly be said to be "biblical" in any meaningful sense. If infused righteousness is true, we might as well chuck the WCF and 1689 and go home to Rome. In the time of the Reformers the papacy was the embodiment of Antichrist. It did not exhuast the meaning of the term, however, in my opinion. I am still anticipating a future Antichrist to arise worthy of the name.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

For those non-historicists.--There are a number of issues that I have never seen seriously dealt with in 2 Thess. 2. The passage points out a "man of sin" emerging from a false church. This man claims the authority of God over the church. Paul speaks of the "man of sin" in the present tense but says he is being restrained. Paul is discreet about the "you know what" that is restraining. Later the "man of sin" is being restrained by a "he". What is the "you know what" and the "he" that restrains the MOS? Keep in mind that there must be an adequate explanation for the obvious discretion Paul is using when describing the restrainers.


----------



## Pergamum

I need to ask again, "Are the present Confessions wrong in this area?" and if you thank that they are, can you be "Confessional?" 

All those who are responding "no" or "I don't know" that hold elder positions, have you voiced this area of disagreement with the Confession?


----------



## BobVigneault

Pergy,
1. you're trying to change the topic and
2. you are trying to stir the pot.

We've had enough pot stirring lately so why don't you take a break from it for now. If you keep picking at scabs then the wounds never heal. Not sure what you're fishing for my friend for but let's put the bait away for a while.

(For those keeping score, that was 'pot stirring', 'scab picking' and 'fishing and baiting' in a small space. I am the Master of Metaphor.)


----------



## PresbyDane

I hold to the confessions


----------



## Dieter Schneider

May I recommend Roman Catholicism by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, found here (links on Roman Catholicism are found here)


----------



## Pergamum

BobVigneault said:


> Pergy,
> 1. you're trying to change the topic and
> 2. you are trying to stir the pot.
> 
> We've had enough pot stirring lately so why don't you take a break from it for now. If you keep picking at scabs then the wounds never heal. Not sure what you're fishing for my friend for but let's put the bait away for a while.
> 
> (For those keeping score, that was 'pot stirring', 'scab picking' and 'fishing and baiting' in a small space. I am the Master of Metaphor.)



I'm making a valid point. 

On the PB all the time people fight over the term "Reformed" and over who owns this term and over what it means to be "confessional." 

Then, a poll comes out over a piece of Puritan eschatology that might show that the Divines were also children of their times, and the majority of those taking the poll are not sure if the Confessions are right on this point.

So, naturally, this gets me intrigued...especially since I've been told I am "unconfessional" and I am not allowed to use the term "Reformed" because I am baptist, when in fact I might be more Confesssional than many on this poll answering "no" as to whether that feller in the funny hat is the incarnation of evil and that man of sin....

It IS pot-stirring, but it is not gratuitious pot stirring. It is a very relevant point about the nature of being "Reformed" 
and "Confessional."



REVISION: It looks like the Yeses have pulled ahead...but there is an awful lot of "no's" and these no answers are what intrigues me and why I posted my scab-scratching, wedgie-giving post.


----------



## YXU

I was from a five generation Catholic family starting from my grandparent's grandparent, according to my knowledge, my experience, and most important, the Word of God, the office of Pope is the Antichrist, the man of sin, the beast the woman with her cup of fornication. 

She and her children (the Arminians, the Antinomians, and other heresies) are Satan's device to trouble the church, I also believe that they will be utterly destroyed when millennium comes in the future. (before Christ comes)


----------



## Honor

IF I can be perfectly frank.... I think that Javier Solana is the beast if not the Anti-Christ, spoke about in the Bible.


----------



## OPC'n

Honor said:


> IF I can be perfectly frank.... I think that Javier Solana is the beast if not the Anti-Christ, spoke about in the Bible.



 Why?


----------



## Honor

that's a whole other ... maybe tomorrow I can write a s/o thread about it... for now if you just wikki him... it's enough to give you the creeps


----------



## JM

I waited to vote, I wanted to re-visit a few texts, creeds, etc. I voted yes.


----------



## BobVigneault

Back when I was a futurist, I thought it was Solana as well. That was then.


----------



## Theogenes

Anton Bruckner said:


> the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.



Keon,
Perhaps their denial of it is in their belief that Christ comes in the flesh at every mass via transubstantiation.
Jim


----------



## Spinningplates2

How many Reformed Christians would the Pope and his false church had to kill for some of you to believe that he is Anti-Christ? Because it sure seems like Rome killed a lot, and that whole "human torch" thing seems like it could have come from the Anti-Christ.


----------



## jaybird0827

> *Westminster Confession (1646)
> *
> 25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.



This is biblical and certainly has been vindicated since Trent.


----------



## BG

Have any of you read Durham's commentary on Revelation? A friend told me he is very convincing and confessional.


----------



## JM

Link?


----------



## Zeno333

Theogenes said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keon,
> Perhaps their denial of it is in their belief that Christ comes in the flesh at every mass via transubstantiation.
> Jim
Click to expand...


True, but the RC church denies one of gthe main "reasons" Christ came in the flesh, and that being so that His righteousness can be Imputed to the Elect...so if a church denies one of the main reasons for the incarnation, does it not in doing so in effect deny Christ coming in the flesh??


----------



## BG

JM said:


> Link?



No link. You have to buy it.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

ManleyBeasley said:


> For those non-historicists.--There are a number of issues that I have never seen seriously dealt with in 2 Thess. 2. The passage points out a "man of sin" emerging from a false church. This man claims the authority of God over the church. Paul speaks of the "man of sin" in the present tense but says he is being restrained. Paul is discreet about the "you know what" that is restraining. Later the "man of sin" is being restrained by a "he". What is the "you know what" and the "he" that restrains the MOS? Keep in mind that there must be an adequate explanation for the obvious discretion Paul is using when describing the restrainers.



I'll just answer my own question. Paul was obviously speaking of the Roman Emperor (he) and the Roman Empire (what). He would not need discretion with anyone/anything else. The theological trappings for a pope were already at work but could not come to power until the openly Pagan absolute power was removed. This "man of sin" would not be destroyed until Christ's return. There certainly isn't a man that has been around this long but the ideals of a papacy have been. They were restrained in Paul's day until the Emperor left Rome. 

The span of being in power since the removal of the emperor and existing until the return of Christ creates a historicist framework. In that time period who else has come out of a false Christianity and claimed the authority of God? Who has had authority over the visible church? If not the papacy then you (non-historicists) have to pick someone who has existed in that span of time.


----------



## discipulo

WDG said:


> Have any of you read Durham's commentary on Revelation? A friend told me he is very convincing and confessional.





JM said:


> Link?



Excerpts from Commentary on Revelation by James Durham 

enough for a good reading

Concerning Writing

Concerning a Calling to the Ministry, and Clearness therein.

This site also has great material from the Scottish Puritan and others

James Durham Thesis


----------



## JM

I thought I had read some of it in the past, thanks.


----------



## Yodas_Prodigy

The Papacy is an anti-Christ. But, it is not the anti-Christ....



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Simple Question.
> 
> (Like anything on the PB could be simple )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Westminster Confession (1646)
> *
> 25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
> *
> 26.4. 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Yodas_Prodigy said:


> The Papacy is an anti-Christ. But, it is not the anti-Christ....
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple Question.
> 
> (Like anything on the PB could be simple )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Westminster Confession (1646)
> *
> 25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
> *
> 26.4. 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Por que?


----------



## Rich Koster

I think the whole thing is muddied by differing snapshots in Church History. The Papacy is anti Christ, however it has not yet matured into its full blown state of evil oppression. Foxes book of Martyrs shows many who have paid the ultimate price for their testimony, but I believe we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of what Jesus will crush upon his return.


----------



## Jon 316

Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were? 

just a pondering...


----------



## KMK

Jon 316 said:


> Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?
> 
> just a pondering...



To better understand what PB is all about read this awesome post by Rich: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-god-have-emotions-42327/#post525908


----------



## Pergamum

KMK:

That emotional God thread is much different: 

It deals with the Godhead and not eschatological speculation. 

The Confesssions MUST address the central doctrines that determine who is "IN" the faith, but eschatological positions are much less important and more "iffy."


Also, in defense of Dr. Bob Gonzales, I don't think he was promoting heresy but was fumbling at the edges of orthodoxy looking for some further clarifications (and falling over the edge). He is never anything but humble and gentle and I think that thread was cut short prematurely. 

If we respect elders and teachers, they ought to be given a chance to defend themselves when it appears that they are teaching error (and yes, I do agree that his speculations appeared to be in error.....but I will never know for sure now will I?).


----------



## Augusta

Jon 316 said:


> Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?
> 
> just a pondering...



The Confessions are very respected as being a summary of what the scriptures teach put together by a very large body of very godly and very intelligent men. The were like theological geniuses. They and their collective judgment as men of God with ecclesiastical authority is not easily cast aside.


----------



## Theognome

Y'all have it wrong. David Hasselhoff is the antichrist.

David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist


Theognome


----------



## YXU

Jon 316 said:


> Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?
> 
> just a pondering...



The confession itself is not infallible but the doctrines summarized in the WCF are all Biblical and correct.


----------



## BJClark

Backwoods Presbyterian;

Most certainly a form of anti-Christ when the pope and the RCC continues to believe he and the priests within the RCC are the only one's who can absolve people of their sin..


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> KMK:
> 
> That emotional God thread is much different:
> 
> It deals with the Godhead and not eschatological speculation.
> 
> The Confesssions MUST address the central doctrines that determine who is "IN" the faith, but eschatological positions are much less important and more "iffy."
> 
> 
> Also, in defense of Dr. Bob Gonzales, I don't think he was promoting heresy but was fumbling at the edges of orthodoxy looking for some further clarifications (and falling over the edge). He is never anything but humble and gentle and I think that thread was cut short prematurely.
> 
> If we respect elders and teachers, they ought to be given a chance to defend themselves when it appears that they are teaching error (and yes, I do agree that his speculations appeared to be in error.....but I will never know for sure now will I?).



Sorry, I was specifically speaking of these words by Rich:



> I think one of the Admins probably put it best when he noted the nature of the board this way: "This board is not designed for theological innovation, but more like "rehearsing the battles of 400 years ago." We're out of touch, and proud of it."
> 
> I'm very conscious of the fact that many people read this board. Sometimes you can search for a particular term on Google and the Puritanboard pops up within hours of a post being put up.
> 
> I recognize that certain forumulations have gained a certain foothold within the Reformed camp. They don't have a good Confessional pedigree but they have enough luminaries that have taught them that they gain a certain: "If you deny that point then you're disagreeing with Hodge..." kind of appeal to them.
> 
> Frankly, at the end of the day, if we gave into every "this Reformed guy wrote this" as acceptably "within bounds" then there would be no boundaries.
> 
> I think a certain level of intellectual curiosity is good but, it seems to me, that gone are the days when a Seminary can be known for teaching the same "old truths" for generations because you're not interesting in theological circles unless some new discovery is made about the nature of God.
> 
> I think Rev. Winzer struck a chord with me once when he ironically quoted Amazing Grace (as an EP advocate) and noted that, when we've been there ten thousand years, we're not going to be re-formulating Truth.
> 
> Perhaps it's because I work in a very chaotic world where national events cause my vocation to have to constantly think on its feet about an ever-changing threat environment that I take comfort that God never changes and, consequently, neither does His Truth.
> 
> If you feel the need to push the envelope on core theological doctrines here then you're likely to find the place unwelcome for those particular discussions.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Pergamum said:


> KMK:
> 
> That emotional God thread is much different:
> 
> It deals with the Godhead and not eschatological speculation.
> 
> The Confesssions MUST address the central doctrines that determine who is "IN" the faith, but eschatological positions are much less important and more "iffy.



It could be argued that to the reformers and puritans historicist eschatology was not iffy or speculation. I know its popular to see eschatology that way in our day and time but I think that results from the popularization of futurism and preterism. Both of these views distance the church from actively opposing the man of sin. They have also opened the door for ecumenical compromises. Think about it, if the historical protestant eschatology is correct then it is not a side issue but a central and vital issue. 

I was a Dispensational futurist for most of my life until I studied 2 Thess 2 and 1 Tim 4. I then took a class on Daniel/Revelation at Liberty Univ. and even though it was also dispensationalist/futurist it only convinced me more thoroughly that the reformers and puritans had it right. I certainly don't condemn people who have a different view but if our forefathers took it so seriously I think we shouldn't easily dismiss them on this issue (I'm not saying that's what you're doing but that is what I did for a long time).


----------



## Pergamum

Whether "iffy" or not, Confessions ought to summarize basic doctrine, those most rooted to determining those who are within or outside of the faith. Eschatology is secondary.


----------



## JM

"Charges against the (Pauline) eschatology find various forms of expression. Foremost stands the (liberal) revulsion from the supernaturalism in the eschatology, for with Paul, as elsewhere in scripture, eschatology is supernaturalism in the nth degree...a so-called Christianity proving cold or hostile towards the interests of the life to come has ceased to be Christianity in the historic sense of the word.

"...the eschatological principle is so deeply embedded in the structure of the biblical religion as to precede and underlie everything else." -- Geerhardus Vos, "The Pauline Eschatology", pp. 62, 63, 66

The Vossed World: Vos: Eschatology precedes and underlies everything else


----------



## Pergamum

JM said:


> "Charges against the (Pauline) eschatology find various forms of expression. Foremost stands the (liberal) revulsion from the supernaturalism in the eschatology, for with Paul, as elsewhere in scripture, eschatology is supernaturalism in the nth degree...a so-called Christianity proving cold or hostile towards the interests of the life to come has ceased to be Christianity in the historic sense of the word.
> 
> "...the eschatological principle is so deeply embedded in the structure of the biblical religion as to precede and underlie everything else." -- Geerhardus Vos, "The Pauline Eschatology", pp. 62, 63, 66
> 
> The Vossed World: Vos: Eschatology precedes and underlies everything else




Keep in mind that most of "eschatology" are the basics of personal eschatology, i.e., that there will be an afterlife and a new heavens and a new earth and there will be a physical resurrection, etc. Out of the vast category "eschatology," this sub-topic of the Antichrist and finding the chronological scheme that is going to happen is minor. This quote by Vos isn't really applicable.


----------



## A.J.

YXU said:


> I was from a five generation Catholic family starting from my grandparent's grandparent, according to my knowledge, my experience, and most important, the Word of God, the office of Pope is the Antichrist, the man of sin, the beast the woman with her cup of fornication.
> 
> She and her children (the Arminians, the Antinomians, and other heresies) are Satan's device to trouble the church, I also believe that they will be utterly destroyed when millennium comes in the future. (before Christ comes)



I can relate with what you have said. I am a former Roman Catholic myself, and most of my relatives are still Roman Catholics. Majority or most of my ancestors in the previous centuries were Roman Catholics as well. 

My parents, sisters and I visited the home of my mother's sister (and her family) just a few hours ago. I found three Roman Catholic images in their home, and I was so saddened by the fact that this is the religion my cute little cousins (ages 5 and 3) will be raised to practice! 

The teachings of the Popes are still what they were during the Protestant Reformation. They are leading souls to eternal damnation. Though I believe that the Pope is an anti-Christ, I am not yet sure whether it is right to call him as _the_ anti-Christ. I still need to do more study on this. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Whether "iffy" or not, Confessions ought to summarize basic doctrine, those most rooted to determining those who are within or outside of the faith.



I have heard this argued before but I don't get it. What is wrong with a church sitting down and creating a 'full orbed' (I know this word has been banned, sorry) confession that includes every jot and tittle upon which they agree? Just because the Divines had agreement on 'secondary issues' does not mean that they believed those who disagreed were unbelievers. It just meant you couldn't hold an office in the church.

Indeed, a great deal of churches have 'unwritten' confessions that include secondary issues. (Try becoming a preterist Calvary Chapel pastor, for example.)

-----Added 1/17/2009 at 05:02:06 EST-----

After rereading this post I realized that it could potentially take this thread off topic. Sorry!


----------



## Marno

The primary meaning of "anti" is "in the place of". Surely one who acts in the place of Christ (as the pope, the "vicar of Christ", does by virtue of his office) is one of the "many antichrists" (1 Jn 2:18). In this sense one may agree with the unabridged confession. But the "man of sin" ...hmm. Probably not the pope, In my humble opinion. I will agree with a previous poster who said he will probably be Islamic, taking the sense all the way back to Ishmael "in the place of" Isaac.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.

Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.

I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view

In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.

Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.” 

The thought was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:

_To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ..._​


----------



## JM

“The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”


----------



## Theognome

I voted option 2 because 2 Thes. 2 does not specifically name the Pope, nor does any other scripture, as _the_ antichrist. I do agree that the office of the papacy is antichrist as would be anyone who fills it under the current Roman doctrine.

Theognome


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> I hold to the confessions



I just believe the Bible.


----------



## Hippo

puritanpilgrim said:


> I hold to the confessions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just believe the Bible.
Click to expand...


And yet you held to a confession when you joined this board. 

We cannot "just" believe the Bible as theology is not stated in a format that does not require interpretation, and in that interpretation we are not sovereign, the Church is, and the Church's interpretation is contained in the confessions.


----------



## Contra Marcion

I subscribe to every word of the WCF as adopted by my denomination (OPC). We accept the amended version, i.e., the "non-Antichrist" version. Are you saying that the entire OPC in in violation of the WCF? (Please tell me you're not!) 

To ask it another way, if the elders of my church have given me a book of standards (WCF, WLC, WSC, BCO), and those standards NOWHERE state that the Pope is the Antichrist, must I believe such a thing anyway to remain confessional, in your view?

-----Added 2/24/2009 at 03:45:42 EST-----



Glenn Ferrell said:


> Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.
> 
> Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.
> 
> I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:
> 
> SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view
> 
> In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.
> 
> Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”
> 
> The though was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:
> 
> _To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ..._​



It appears pastor Farrell beat me to my point in the beginning of his post. Thank you, sir.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim
> Quote:
> I hold to the confessions
> 
> I just believe the Bible.
> 
> And yet you held to a confession when you joined this board.
> 
> We cannot "just" believe the Bible as theology is not stated in a format that does not require interpretation, and in that interpretation we are not sovereign, the Church is, and the Church's interpretation is contained in the confessions.



*i·ro·ny* (ī'rə-nē, ī'ər-) Pronunciation Key 
n. pl. i·ro·nies 


The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. 
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. 
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1. 
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain). 
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic. 

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain). 
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic. 
Dramatic irony. 
Socratic irony. 

see also:

*jest*
   /dʒɛst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jest] Show IPA Pronunciation 

–noun 1. a joke or witty remark; witticism. 
2. a bantering remark; a piece of good-natured ridicule; taunt. 
3. sport or fun: to speak half in jest, half in earnest. 
4. the object of laughter, sport, or mockery; laughing-stock. 
5. Obsolete. an exploit. Compare gest. 
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak in a playful, humorous, or facetious way; joke. 
7. to speak or act in mere sport, rather than in earnest; trifle (often fol. by with): Please don't jest with me. 
8. to utter derisive speeches; gibe or scoff. 
–verb (used with object) 9. to deride or joke at; banter. 

see also:


*joke*
   /dʒoʊk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [johk] Show IPA Pronunciation 
noun, verb, joked, jok⋅ing. 
–noun 1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him. 
2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke. 
3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke. 
4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class. 
5. practical joke. 
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak or act in a playful or merry way: He was always joking with us. 
7. to say something in fun or teasing rather than in earnest; be facetious: He didn't really mean it, he was only joking. 
–verb (used with object) 8. to subject to jokes; make fun of; tease. 
9. to obtain by joking: The comedian joked coins from the audience.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Contra Marcion said:


> I subscribe to every word of the WCF as adopted by my denomination (OPC). We accept the amended version, i.e., the "non-Antichrist" version. Are you saying that the entire OPC in in violation of the WCF? (Please tell me you're not!)
> 
> To ask it another way, if the elders of my church have given me a book of standards (WCF, WLC, WSC, BCO), and those standards NOWHERE state that the Pope is the Antichrist, must I believe such a thing anyway to remain confessional, in your view?
> 
> -----Added 2/24/2009 at 03:45:42 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.
> 
> Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.
> 
> I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:
> 
> SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view
> 
> In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.
> 
> Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”
> 
> The though was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:
> 
> _To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ..._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears pastor Farrell beat me to my point in the beginning of his post. Thank you, sir.
Click to expand...


Are any revisions acceptable? What if a large group of Brazilians got together and revised the WCF further and removed the affirmation of the doctrines of grace? Would we consider them truly confessional? It may be said that eschatology is not as central as the doctrines of grace but eschatology was central enough for the divines to include it in their confession. How can we change their confession and still say we truly adhere to the confession?


----------



## Augusta

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.
> 
> Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.
> 
> I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:
> 
> SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view
> 
> In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.
> 
> Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”
> 
> The though was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:
> 
> _To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ..._​



The sermon by Rev. Silversides is really good. I am going to listen again and take notes. He fully exegetes the Thessalonians passage verse by verse. I highly recommend it.


----------



## Marno

I voted that the Scripture does not name the pope as _the_ antichrist, but on the other hand, it doesn't say the pope _isn't_ an antichrist (which he obviously is, as the "vicar" of Christ). 

anti = "in the place of"


----------



## Edward

lynnie said:


> Ummm....
> 
> 
> I appreciate you posting this as I now realize I have a disagreement with the WCF here. I will look forward to reading the replies.



It's not in the current PCA or OPC versions - so you are safe. 

Of course, we still don't allow marriage with Papists.


----------



## Andyman

There is nowhere in Scripture that definitively points out who will be the antichrist; its a guessing game at best. He may be in the world and perhaps even in public office right now, but I don't believe that even the antichrist will know who he is until he comes to power.


----------



## relostuff

OK I voted maybe, but I will have to change it to Yes,,,,, I agree with WCF and the 1689BCF 



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Simple Question.
> 
> (Like anything on the PB could be simple )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Westminster Confession (1646)
> *
> 25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
> *
> 26.4. 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## kevin.carroll

The Confessions are just wrong on this point. Since that clause has been excised from our constitution, I don't have to take an exception. Cool Beans.


----------



## Iconoclast

20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
Rev. Ken Gentry • 41 min. 
GPTS & Mt. Olive 500+ Play! | MP3 

TUE 12/07/2004
Special Meeting

Nero


----------



## ewenlin

Hey why isn't there an option for Nicolae Carpathia. hahaha just kidding.


----------



## bug

The confession do not actually say that the pope is the antichrist though do they, they say he is 'that antichrist.' the 'anti' is the greek root, not the latin, it means subsititue, and yes the papacy is a substitute Christ. It may be dangerous, and in some situations unhelpful to designate a perticular pope as 'the antichrist', but the office certain is an antichrist.


----------



## Reluctantly Reforming

> Y'all have it wrong. David Hasselhoff is the antichrist.
> 
> David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist
> 
> 
> Theognome



The site's exegesis is impressive. I may have to rethink my eschatology.


----------



## Peairtach

I believe that there are many antichrists e.g.Gnosticism, JWs, etc, but that the Papacy is _the_ Antichrist.

Patrick Fairbairn has a very good discussion of this in his "Interpretation of Prophecy". An antichrist must look "Christian" while denying the fundamental saving realities of Christianity. This would make Liberalism and some of what passes for Evangelicalism today antichristian. But Islam, Buddhism, Communism, Hinduism, Fascism, Judaism, etc,etc aren't antichrists.

Statist persecution by Islamic, Communist, Fascist and now democratic states, would correspond to the return of the first beast of Revelation, typified by pagan Rome and Nero. The first beast -statist persecution - is not to be confused with the/an antichrist, but historically and in Revelation they do co-operate.

The second beast from the earth (false prophet) would certainly include the Papacy and other antichrists. These antichrists produce the compromised church (Eastern Orthodox, Liberal and Roman Catholic, etc, etc) which is pictured by the Babylonian Harlot.

That's my tuppence-worth on a complicated subject. Please take it wth a pinch of salt, and don't be too dogmatic, as I do.


----------



## Jon Peters

Honor said:


> that's a whole other ... maybe tomorrow I can write a s/o thread about it... for now if you just wikki him... it's enough to give you the creeps



I just read his bio. I don't get it. Is it because he's held UN and EU posts?


----------



## kevin.carroll

Pergamum said:


> So are the confessions then wrong?



In this case, yes. in my opinion

-----Added 5/15/2009 at 01:21:38 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> I need to ask again, "Are the present Confessions wrong in this area?" and if you thank that they are, can you be "Confessional?"
> 
> All those who are responding "no" or "I don't know" that hold elder positions, have you voiced this area of disagreement with the Confession?



As I said before, since the PCA removed this phrase from the Confessions, there is no exception to declare.


----------



## Jon Peters

ManleyBeasley said:


> Are any revisions acceptable? What if a large group of Brazilians got together and revised the WCF further and removed the affirmation of the doctrines of grace? Would we consider them truly confessional? It may be said that eschatology is not as central as the doctrines of grace but eschatology was central enough for the divines to include it in their confession. How can we change their confession and still say we truly adhere to the confession?



The Confession wasn't written with the idea that it could or should never be changed. The document itself admits to its fallibility.

Now, can I claim to hold to the original version? No. I hold to the version adopted by my church, the OPC.

Should we believe a doctrine only because it's in the Confession?


----------



## shackleton

I would say no because the RCC church was not around then so it would have had to have a meaning that was present to them, possibly the Judaizers.


----------



## KMK

Jon Peters said:


> The Confession wasn't written with the idea that it could or should never be changed. The document itself admits to its fallibility.



The fact that the Divines did not claim their confession was infallible does not mean they believed it should be changed.


----------



## Peairtach

The fact that I believe the Papacy to be _the_ Antichrist - which can mean "in the place of Christ" as well as "against Christ" - as opposed to _an_ antichrist, like e.g. theological Liberalism, neo-Evangelicalism and the Watchtower Society, is not something that I bring up with potential converts from Roman Catholicism unless they ask me. 

This doctrine would be strong meat for a Roman Catholic until the Holy Spirit showed them the nature of the Papacy and its false pretensions.


----------



## DMcFadden

Iconoclast said:


> 20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
> Rev. Ken Gentry . . .



Ken Gentry is the antichrist?!? 

I had been leaning towards Obama, Bill Maher, Joel Osteen, or even N. Carpathia. Thanks for the tip.

I can accept the papacy as antichrist in the biblical sense of 1 John 2: "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18 (ESV) 

From the perspective of 500 years after Calvin's birth, the stand of the RC church during the Reformation certainly qualifies for the designation "antichrist" and as being evidence that "many antichrists have come."


----------



## py3ak

Poimen said:


> I voted for the third option only because 2 Thessalonians 2 does not speak of the Antichrist but rather the "man of sin (lawless one)". In other words one has to assume that he should be identified as or be equal to the Antichrist (1 John 2,4; 2 John 7) which is not readily apparent.
> 
> And, for the record, no I do not believe that the pope and/or papacy is the Antichrist.



I agree with Daniel, except that I would like to clarify that I tend to think that the papacy is the man of sin.


----------



## MW

For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?


----------



## reformed trucker

DMcFadden said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
> Rev. Ken Gentry . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Gentry is the antichrist?!?
> 
> I had been leaning towards Obama, Bill Maher, Joel Osteen, or even N. Carpathia. Thanks for the tip.
Click to expand...


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> I need to ask again, "Are the present Confessions wrong in this area?" and if you thank that they are, can you be "Confessional?"
> 
> All those who are responding "no" or "I don't know" that hold elder positions, have you voiced this area of disagreement with the Confession?



One ordained in the PCA or OPC should not have to take an exception to the standards if they do believe the Pope is the (or an) Antichrist. The confessional standard does not require that they disbelieve that. 

So one is free to either believe or disbelieve it. But one better not marry a 'papist'.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Anton Bruckner said:


> the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.



Probably worth pointing out that the Pope claims all the offices of the Trinity:

Good Shepherd - God the Son
Holy Father - God the Father
Vicar of Christ - God the Holy Spirit


----------



## Marrow Man

ThomasCartwright said:


> Probably worth pointing out that the Pope claims all the offices of the Trinity:
> 
> Good Shepherd - God the Son
> Holy Father - God the Father
> Vicar of Christ - God the Holy Spirit





Question: Where does the Pope call himself the "good shepherd"? I'm not disputing that, I'd just like to be able to reference it!


----------



## Peairtach

TranZ4MR said:


> I believe that Nero was the Anti-Christ.



I believe Nero takes his place along with the Roman Empire as the first beast of the Book of Revelation. That is Nero becomes a type for all succeeding generations of statist persecution.

But from the use of the word antichrist in I John it is clear that an antichrist must have pretensions to be Christian while denying the saving reality of Christianity. For example the Gnostic heresy that John was combatting, theological Liberalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, JWs, Mormonism, and supremely and classically, the Papacy.

The Papacy and these other antichrists have done far worse than any statist persecution of the church could do _or will do in the future_. They have led people (millions of them) up the garden path with a lie in their right hand when they thought they had salvation. I say that as someone who believes that people can and have found salvation in Rome, when they've looked beyond the rubbish.

These antichrists may be repesented by the second beast (from the earth) with two horns like a lamb who spoke like a dragon, who is also called the false prophet. Their words to the woman (the church) lead to her becoming a whore ( the city Babylon). Thankfully Christ purifies her and she becomes His bride (the city New Jerusalem).

The Man of Sin sitting in God's temple is best seen as the Confession says in the Papacy, which over many centuries has done far more damage to people's souls than Nero's short persecution or any blatant statist persecution could do to the bodies of believers and unbelievers. 

There is also no _mystery_ associated with statist persecution, whereas there is _mystery_ associated with the Papacy, Romanism and other antichrists. John the Apostle wonders at Babylon because she is the "Church" but not the Church, and because she persecutes her own children. It is because of the camouflaged/mysterious/cloaking-device nature of the Papacy that people (even believers and Reformed believers) find it hard to believe and say that the Papacy is _the_ Antichrist.

The restrainer of the emergence of the Papacy was the Roman Empire headed by the Emperor.


----------



## Berean

Richard Tallach said:


> The Man of Sin sitting in God's temple is best seen as the Confession says in *the Papacy, which over many centuries has done far more damage to people's souls* than Nero's short persecution or any blatant statist persecution could do to the bodies of believers and unbelievers.



Good point. And not just 'the pope' but the agents of the pope throughout the world.


----------



## SolaGratia

Marrow Man said:


> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably worth pointing out that the Pope claims all the offices of the Trinity:
> 
> Good Shepherd - God the Son
> Holy Father - God the Father
> Vicar of Christ - God the Holy Spirit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Where does the Pope call himself the "good shepherd"? I'm not disputing that, I'd just like to be able to reference it!
Click to expand...


Tim,

Here is my reference list:


At the death of Pius XII he was elected Pope on 28 October 1958, taking the name John XXIII. His pontificate, which lasted less than five years, presented him to the entire world as an *authentic image of the Good Shepherd*. Meek and gentle, enterprising and courageous, simple and active, he carried out the Christian duties of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy: visiting the imprisoned and the sick, welcoming those of every nation and faith, bestowing on all his exquisite fatherly care.

Pope John XXIII

How often, in his letters to priests and in his autobiographical books has he spoken to us about his priesthood, to which he was ordained on 1 November 1946. In these texts he interprets his priesthood with particular reference to three sayings of the Lord. First: "You did not choose me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last" (Jn 15:16). The second saying is: "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (Jn 10:11). And then: "As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love" (Jn 15:9). In these three sayings we see the heart and soul of our Holy Father. He really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts. "Rise, Let us be on our Way!" is the title of his next-to-last book. "Rise, let us be on our way!" – with these words he roused us from a lethargic faith, from the sleep of the disciples of both yesterday and today. "Rise, let us be on our way!" he continues to say to us even today. *The Holy Father was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God for his flock and for the entire human family, in a daily self-oblation for the service of the Church, especially amid the sufferings of his final months. And in this way he became one with Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves his sheep.* Finally, "abide in my love:" the Pope who tried to meet everyone, who had an ability to forgive and to open his heart to all, tells us once again today, with these words of the Lord, that by abiding in the love of Christ we learn, at the school of Christ, the art of true love.

Funeral Mass and Burial of the Body of the Roman Pontiff John Paul II

My dear Catholics; I am glad to tell you that the Successor of Peter, Pope John Paul II, *who is the one in charge of the whole Catholic flock in the world, our good shepherd, has you always in his prayers.* He has assured you of his continual care, support and love: He loves you; he loves all Mongolian people.

Eucharistic concelebration for the consecration of the Cathedral of Ulaanbaatar, dedicated to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

How alone we all felt after the passing of John Paul II – *the Pope who for over twenty-six years had been our shepherd *and guide on our journey through life! He crossed the threshold of the next life, entering into the mystery of God. But he did not take this step alone. Those who believe are never alone – neither in life nor in death. At that moment, we could call upon the Saints from every age –

Mass for the Inauguration of the Pontificate of His Holiness Benedict XVI

1. The Proclamation

Being the millennium of evangelization in Asia, Proclamation becomes a special role for bishops. The bishop takes the place of the Apostles as pastor for the proclamation of the Gospel as a message of hope for humanity torn by conflicts. His mission is to build the local Church 'as a communion of communities' around him, its Shepherd. Against the odds of the secular world, his preaching of the Word and his example will animate the people to a rebirth of a living hope.

Bishop is the first teacher of the faith. Most Catholics do not know their religion well. Hence, Catholics have been vulnerable to attacks from all corners and have gone astray. The Bishop must courageously proclaim the Word "in its entirety" and the people grow in their faith. The laity have the right to know the teachings of the Fathers, Vatican II and the recent Popes on delicate matters of moral and family life and their role in the building up of the Church. The Bishop should make them available to his people through publications, diocesan synods, seminars, pastoral letters, etc.

*The bishop is the living presence of Christ in his Church. As a good shepherd in his total self-giving he creates a knowing and loving relationship with his flock. Like Jesus the Good Shepherd, the Bishop governs and guides the poor, the needy and goes in search of the lost sheep to bring them back to the fold.*

http://www.vatican.va/news_services...no_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b17_02.html


*Catechism of the Catholic Church*

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

The governing office

896 *The Good Shepherd* ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father":428

Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God's law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.429

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life

Conscious that the evangelical parable of the Good Samaritan "has become one of the essential component parts of moral culture and universally human civilization" (SD, 29). and certain that "Christ at the same time taught man to do good with suffering and to do good to those who suffer. In this dual aspect he fully revealed the meaning of suffering" (SD, 30). *This is the word of God that the Pope, the "Good Shepherd", expresses in his priesthood.*

The person who searches for a model by which to apply the directions derived from these last two acts of John Paul II, will find it alive and active in his priesthood as Supreme Pastor of the Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...work_doc_19920101_healthcare-ministry_en.html

In the same spirit of the "pilgrimage of peace", the exact one of the evangelical figure of the "Good Shepherd" who is careful to heal the wounds of his flock, again the Holy Father recently visited Croatia (2-9 June 2003)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s...eg-st_20031018_sodano-xxv-pontificate_en.html

63. From this Apostolic Center of the Church of Christ, We turn Our eyes toward those who, unfortunately in great numbers, are either ignorant of Christ and His Redemption or do not follow in their entirety His teachings, or who are separated from the unity of His Church and thus are without His Fold, although they too have been called by Christ to membership in His Church. The Vicar of the Good Shepherd, seeing so many of his sheep gone astray, cannot but recall and make his own the simple but expressive words of Christ, words which are permeated through and through by the longings born of divine desire: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring." (John x, 16) He cannot but rejoice in the wonderful prophecy which filled even the Sacred Heart of Jesus with joy. "And they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." May God, and We join with you and with all the faithful in this prayer, shortly bring to fulfillment His prophecy by transforming this consoling vision of the future into a present reality.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._enc_23121922_ubi-arcano-dei-consilio_en.html

*The Bishop is an image of the Father*; he makes Christ present as the Good Shepherd; he receives the fullness of the Holy Spirit from which spring up teachings and ministerial initiatives for the purpose of building up, in the image of the Trinity and through the word and sacraments, that Church which is the place of God's gift to the faithful who have been entrusted to it.(43)

In the midst of his people *the Bishop is the living sign of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd who walks with his flock.*

Mary is the primary witness and example for the whole Church of this spiritual union of joy and hope. In her Magnificat, she sings the joy of all the Lord's poor who hope in His Word. She was not spared suffering. However, by uniting suffering in a pre-eminent way to the sacrifice of Her Son, she become at the foot of the cross the "Mother of Sorrows", and thus totally open to the joy of the Resurrection.

She is now with her Son who is seated in glory at the right hand of the Father. Assumed into heaven in the integrity of her person, body and soul, she sums up every joy in herself and lives the perfect joy promised to the Church. The Church looks to her, because she is for all who are still on the earthly pilgrimage "a sign of sure hope and solace until the day of the Lord shall come.(155) The Church also turns to her in prayer, invoking her as Mater Spei, Mater Plena Sanctae Laetitiae and Causa Nostrae Laetitiae.

100. Like every Christian, each Bishop entrusts himself to Mary as her child. In imitation of the Beloved Disciple who received the Lord's mother from Christ on Calvary, the Bishop gives her a place in every aspect of his interior life.(156)

The Church often invokes Mary as Regina Apostolorum. "May the Blessed Virgin intercede for all the Pastors of the Church, so that in their demanding ministry *they may be increasingly conformed to the image of the Good Shepherd.(157)*

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_01081996_usa-lineam_en.html


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Berean*
_Good point. And not just 'the pope' but the agents of the pope throughout the world._

Well "the Papacy" is the whole man-made idolatrous sytem headed up by the Pope that dominates the Roman Catholic Church, and hence sits enthroned in God's Visible Church.

Because I believe the Papacy to be the Antichrist, does not mean that I always believe it to be the main enemy in a particular situation or country. The antichrists of Liberal theology, neo-Evangelicalism, Emerging, etc, are greater threats to the Protestant Church in Britain. Secular humanism and Islam are also external threats greater than the Antichrist that is the Papacy. 

To say that these are "threats" is to make a great understatement of course.
The Protestant Church in Great Britain has been mauled terribly by secular humanism and Liberal theology over the past 150 years and left a shadow of her former self; not by Romanism.


----------



## YXU

Anton Bruckner said:


> the Papacy is not the anti Christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.



Pope's denial of Christ is mystical. Although they agree with the fundamentals (the Apostle's Creed), their principles and their deeds contradict with their confession. The reason why John marvelled at the woman is because her damage to the church is so mystical, and so is her title. 

Also, if you believe that the Papacy confirms that Jesus came in the flesh, according to John, they have eternal life. How can the Pope of Rome has anything to do with eternal life?


----------



## Dan "a" man

I think this an entirely valid question. But if the pope is "the" anti-Christ, shouldn't we have had some major eschatological consequences by this point in history?


----------



## YXU

Dan "a" man said:


> I think this an entirely valid question. But if the pope is "the" anti-Christ, shouldn't we have had some major eschatological consequences by this point in history?



Yes, we do. As the catechism teaches, we should pray for the destruction of the antichrist, and the prosperity of the church follows.


----------



## Matthias

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Berean*
> _Good point. And not just 'the pope' but the agents of the pope throughout the world._
> 
> Well "the Papacy" is the whole man-made idolatrous sytem headed up by the Pope that dominates the Roman Catholic Church, and hence sits enthroned in God's Visible Church.
> 
> Because I believe the Papacy to be the Antichrist, does not mean that I always believe it to be the main enemy in a particular situation or country. The antichrists of Liberal theology, neo-Evangelicalism, Emerging, etc, are greater threats to the Protestant Church in Britain. Secular humanism and Islam are also external threats greater than the Antichrist that is the Papacy.
> 
> To say that these are "threats" is to make a great understatement of course.
> The Protestant Church in Great Britain has been mauled terribly by secular humanism and Liberal theology over the past 150 years and left a shadow of her former self; not by Romanism.



I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Matthias*
_I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day._

Well I believe there is enough wickedness in e.g. unconverted nineteenth century German Lutheran theologians, and others in Protestantism, to generate their own false theologies without help from the Papacy.

But if there is underhand influence from the Papacy, it would tie in with Babylon (which I believe to be the Roman Church) being not only a harlot but also the mother of harlots, not only in the sense of being the most notable apostasy, but also in the sense of generating other apostasies.

*Quote from Dan ''a'' man*
_But if the pope is "the" anti-Christ, shouldn't we have had some major eschatological consequences by this point in history?_ 

The Papacy has had major eschatalogical consequences in this New Covenant period for believers and unbelievers alike and will continue doing so until its final overthrow and that of all antichrists. Many have gone to a lost eternity because of the lies of the Papacy regarding the way of salvation and many still are today. 

The Papacy is an obstacle - not the only one - to the spread of the Gospel. Less significantly but still importantly, many people who have stood up to the Papacy have lost their lives.


----------



## Confessor

Matthias said:


> I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.



Indeed, even Arminianism and its pretension of free will is in principle a return to Rome.


----------



## Matthias

Confessor said:


> Matthias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with much of what you said, but I do think it would be important to note that a great portion of liberal theology and humanism that has effected protestantism has as its birthplace Rome. We would be wise to never underestimate the Popes army of Jesuits, and their age old conspiracy called the counter-reformation. This is not a wing-nut conspiracy theory either.. the Jesuits have declared war on the reformation, and this war continues to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, even Arminianism and its pretension of free will is in principle a return to Rome.
Click to expand...


Yep, and there is even evidence to suspect Arminius was a Jesuit. In 1586 when arminius was released from Geneva, he was supposed to travel back to amsterdam where he was under contract to the city to labor in order to pay back his tuition. Instead, he went straight to Rome for a "vacation" 

Augustus Toplady (Author of Rock of Ages) says this in his work "The road to Rome":

"The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward to the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant Churches. It needs therefore no great penetration to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome was not for not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted for others to the disciples of Loyola(Jesuits)"

Add those sentiments to this Jesuit document of 1628:

"Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:--OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME."

Interesting stuff if you ask me


----------



## Confessor

Matthias said:


> We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme



Wow...that is interesting for sure. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## charliejunfan

My position as of now is that the RCC is the whore of Babylon (Is that right spelling?)...


----------



## Peairtach

Check out Patrick Fairbairn's "Interpretation of Prophecy" (BoT). He is an excellent and sound guide to start with. I've also learned from Bahnsen's tape series on Revelation, James Madison MacDonald (recommended by Hodge) and some of Gentry.

Fairbairn doesn't limit the apostate church represented by Babylon to Rome, but believes that that is the main theme.


----------



## dbroyles

Matthias said:


> Add those sentiments to this Jesuit document of 1628:
> 
> "Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:--OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME."
> 
> Interesting stuff if you ask me



Wow! That's incredible.


----------



## kevin.carroll

armourbearer said:


> For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?



The American version of the confession, adopted in 1789 reads,

*25.6: "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."*
So, as you can see, we have no subscriptional problem within our own communion.


----------



## Confessor

kevin.carroll said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American version of the confession, adopted in 1789 reads,
> 
> *25.6: "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."*
> So, as you can see, we have no subscriptional problem within our own communion.
Click to expand...


I don't think Rev. Winzer was pointing out a confessional issue as much as a logical issue.


----------



## YXU

kevin.carroll said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American version of the confession, adopted in 1789 reads,
> 
> *25.6: "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."*
> So, as you can see, we have no subscriptional problem within our own communion.
Click to expand...


If you agree that the Pope of Rome is not the head of the church, but disagree that the Pope of Rome is that antichrist and man of sin, then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then? It is contradicting. For who can be called the mother of all harlots and abominations other than the Pope of Rome and the church which he is the head.


----------



## historyb

Ancient Rome itself through Nero


----------



## MW

Confessor said:


> I don't think Rev. Winzer was pointing out a confessional issue as much as a logical issue.



Exactly; the logical consequence of the revision amounts to the same proposition as the original. Major: He who exalts himself in the temple of God is the man of sin. Minor: The Pope of Rome exalts himself in the temple of God. Ergo: The Pope of Rome is the man of sin. The plain words of 2 Thess. 2:4 established the major. The plain words of the revision of the Confession establishes the minor. The only reasonable conclusion is that which is drawn by the original wording of the Confession.


----------



## DMcFadden

Beast, "Whore of Babylon, "man of sin," etc. 

In the popular (e.g., Left Behind) imagination, we should expect a SINister bogeyman of unmitigated evil and depravity.

I'm of the opinion that semi-Pelagianism is a far better candidate for such a Satanic ploy. The "religious" attractions of it make it a devilishly seductive alternative to the Gospel.


----------



## YXU

historyb said:


> Ancient Rome itself through Nero



If so be it, then why the church is still under various pollutions. The chapter follows the destruction of Babylon is a glorious victory of Jesus Christ (Rev. Chapter 19), corresponding to that of Ezekiel Chapter 38, that the people should know the LORD. The chapter follows that is the millennium (Chapter 20)which fulfills a lot of the prophecies of old. All these things have not be fulfilled yet. The nations have not recognised Jesus as the Lord, yet. 

And if Nero be that antichrist, then what is the deadly wound that was healed, what is the image of the beast, how did Nero come out of us, as he was never part of us, and what is the apostasy that happened before the revealing of the antichrist? The time of the church under the persecution of the antichrist is 1260 days, how does it work with Nero? When did Nero sit in the temple of God? And why John in his epistles said that the antichrist shall come, but Nero was already dead by that time. How does Nero fits the description of the little horn, who are the three horns that were plucked out by that little horn? After the destruction of the antichrist, _and the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High. (Dan. 7:27)_, we have not seen such thing happen after the death of Nero, what we have seen right now is the people of God in the wilderness.


----------



## Peairtach

historyb said:


> Ancient Rome itself through Nero



Nero may fit a picture of the first beast in Revelation, as the head of the Roman Empire, as 666/616 and hence represents statist/worldly persecution of Christians which is still with us and continues down to the present day. This beast is never called the Antichrist, the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition.

There seems to be a conflating of ideas here so that some seem to roll all these different eschatalogical characters into one. Let's not conflate when the Bible is talking of statist/worldly persecution (first beast) with ecclesiastical/spiritual heresy (second beast).

Re the Antichrist/antichrists, John indicates that such must have a Christian veneer and come from within the Church, while denying the reality of Christianity. Such were the Gnostic Christians of John's day and such is the Papacy.

Re Nero sitting in God's Temple, I'm not aware that he ever did such, whether you take the Temple to be the Temple at Jerusalem or God's Church. I do not know what profound eschatalogical significance it would have if he did, as he was only around for a short period.

The Papacy on the other hand has been around for donkey's, sits enthroned in God's Temple, the Church, and has led and continues to lead millions to Hell. Quite a significant and notorious and blatant antichrist. _The_ most significant, notorious and blatant Antichrist.

This does not mean we should be obsessed with the Papacy to the exclusion of other antichrists (second beast), the dangers of statist persecution (first beast) and apostasy in the church (Babylon). 

These things will always be with us until the Golden Age when Satan is fully bound.


----------



## YXU

Richard Tallach said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Rome itself through Nero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nero may fit a picture of the first beast in Revelation, as the head of the Roman Empire, as 666/616 and hence represents statist/worldly persecution of Christians which is still with us and continues down to the present day. This beast is never called the Antichrist, the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition.
> 
> There seems to be a conflating of ideas here so that some seem to roll all these different eschatalogical characters into one. Let's not conflate when the Bible is talking of statist/worldly persecution (first beast) with ecclesiastical/spiritual heresy (second beast).
> 
> Re the Antichrist/antichrists, John indicates that such must have a Christian veneer and come from within the Church, while denying the reality of Christianity. Such were the Gnostic Christians of John's day and such is the Papacy.
> 
> Re Nero sitting in God's Temple, I'm not aware that he ever did such, whether you take the Temple to be the Temple at Jerusalem or God's Church. I do not know what profound eschatalogical significance it would have if he did, as he was only around for a short period.
> 
> The Papacy on the other hand has been around for donkey's, sits enthroned in God's Temple, the Church, and has led and continues to lead millions to Hell. Quite a significant and notorious and blatant antichrist. _The_ most significant, notorious and blatant Antichrist.
> 
> This does not mean we should be obsessed with the Papacy to the exclusion of other antichrists (second beast), the dangers of statist persecution (first beast) and apostasy in the church (Babylon).
> 
> These things will always be with us until the Golden Age when Satan is fully bound.
Click to expand...


Richard,

I think it is reasonable that the first beast whose wound was healed, and the second whose number is 666, and the great harlot, all of them are describing the Pope of Rome and the church where he is the head from different prespectives. For the time 1260 days is assigned to the first beast out of the sea, which corresponds perfectly to that which is in Daniel Chapter7, while the second beast is the little horn. The rise of the little horn and its evil doings healed the deadly wound of the empire whose power was lost. And the image of the first beast which is the empire is the little horn or the Pope of Rome itself.

Also the number of Nero's name counts 666 in the Hebrew language which does not have weight, compared to the number of the word latin church in Greek.


----------



## SolaGratia

*Gregory I (540-604):*

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" and compares the man who chooses the title "universal bishop" to Satan. 

[Gregory I of Rome, Book V, Epistle 18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, 12:166] 

The Roman Catholic Pope is the Anti-Christ. Period.

Case Closed!


----------



## CNJ

There are only four verses in the Bible with the term antichrist. But we don't know that there is one antichrist according to I John 2:18 where John says it is the end times since there are many antichrists. I John 2:22 and 2 John 7 say that antichrists are those who deny the Father and the Son. I John 4:3 and I John 2:18 say that the antichrist was already in John's world. 

See Millennial Dreams where I (as NewKidontheBlogg) am also wrestling with this issue.


----------



## kevin.carroll

YXU, et al, sounds to me like Reformed dispensationalism, i.e. having all the eschatological answers.

You ask, "then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then?" Don't know. I'm sure it will be clear when it happens.

If the pope is the AC, and folks are pointing to the Thessalonian passage as proof, then which pope? If the answer is the office of pope, then why does Paul seem to anticipate a single man?

I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. Re Rome: Rome bad, grace good. I figure the rest will kind of sort itself out.


----------



## JM

> *Westminster Confession (1646)*
> 25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.
> 
> *1689 Baptist Confession of Faith*
> 26.4. 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.



Is it "YXU, et al" the confessions?


----------



## kevin.carroll

CNJ said:


> There are only four verses in the Bible with the term antichrist. But we don't know that there is one antichrist according to I John 2:18 where John says it is the end times since there are many antichrists. I John 2:22 and 2 John 7 say that antichrists are those who deny the Father and the Son. I John 4:3 and I John 2:18 say that the antichrist was already in John's world.
> 
> See Millennial Dreams where I (as NewKidontheBlogg) am also wrestling with this issue.



BTW, thisis a good point. John seems to indicate that anti-Christ is both a spirit of error and any individual who preaches/teaches error. In that regard, the pope is anti-Christ. Whether he is Paul's man of sin remains to be seen.

-----Added 5/23/2009 at 04:09:49 EST-----

No, JM. I just think the confessions there are guilty of a dispensational type error, i.e. reading the Scriptures in light of their times and not the other way around.

The RCC did not exist when Paul wrote, so it seems ludicrous to think that is what he referred to.

In any event, I am much more interested in the appearing of Christ than of anti-Christ, whoever/whatever he may be.


----------



## JM

Ok, understood.


----------



## Confessor

kevin.carroll said:


> You ask, "then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then?" Don't know. I'm sure it will be clear when it happens.



The Reformers thought it was awfully clear. I'm not trying to impugn your perceptive abilities; I just want to ensure that you don't set too high a standard. We can't expect the Antichrist to say, "I am sitting in the temple of God; I claim to be Christian but I am actually an agent of Satan; read 2 Thessalonians 2 if you don't believe me."

As for the man of sin, he has to be someone who has infiltrated the church and claims friendship with Christ (like Judas, the original man of sin); he has to exalt himself above all things and equate himself with God (v. 4); he has to be a great deceiver (v. 10)...can you imagine a better candidate than the papacy?

Clearly the antichrist cannot be Islamic or atheistic, given that he must be a vice-Christ, a deceptive substitute. The papacy claims _all authority_ in things temporal and spiritual (_contra_ Christ's claim in Matthew 28:18), thereby exalting himself above all earthly things. He is blasphemously referred to as the _Good Shepherd_ and _Heavenly Father_, titles that should be reserved for God, thereby exalting himself to the status of God. His religion has a false substitute for everything Biblical: the pope, a different god; the Church, a different savior; the Mass, a different sacrifice; the priesthood, a different mediator; the sacraments, a different means of sanctification; infused righteousness; a different means of justification; and the confessional, a different means of pardon -- Romanism attempts to subvert Christ and His Biblical Church at _every junction_. The Roman church is also infamous for its _counterfeit miracles_ (v. 9).

If this doesn't convince you (and I am not trying to say my presentation of the argument is infallible), then fine; but please remember what exactly we need to "clearly see" in order to find the Antichrist. The Reformers and Puritans were unanimous in the clarity of the papacy as antichrist; to say they were somehow confined to their times -- not that you necessarily do -- is to wrongly brush aside their arguments.



kevin.carroll said:


> If the pope is the AC, and folks are pointing to the Thessalonian passage as proof, then which pope? If the answer is the office of pope, then why does Paul seem to anticipate a single man?



All the work anticipated to be done by the man of sin surely seems to point to a succession of men. And considering that the papacy is a _one-man office_, he fits this criterion admirably.


----------



## Spinningplates2

historyb said:


> Ancient Rome itself through Nero



Nero was the Beast. Pope is one of many antichrists.


----------



## kalawine

TranZ4MR said:


> I believe that Nero was the Anti-Christ.



 I agree. THE Anti-Christ; not AN Anti-Christ. Nero fits the bill.


----------



## YXU

kevin.carroll said:


> YXU, et al, sounds to me like Reformed dispensationalism, i.e. having all the eschatological answers.
> 
> You ask, "then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then?" Don't know. I'm sure it will be clear when it happens.
> 
> If the pope is the AC, and folks are pointing to the Thessalonian passage as proof, then which pope? If the answer is the office of pope, then why does Paul seem to anticipate a single man?
> 
> I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. Re Rome: Rome bad, grace good. I figure the rest will kind of sort itself out.



If we were in the first to the fourth century, we may well say we don't know. Because such will not be revealed until the falling away, and we have almost no relevant information. But as in this point of time, we may well say, the reformers are absolutely correct. The reformers have various eschatological interpretation, but, the Pope of Rome is the antichrist is held by all of them. 

However, it is worth to notice that many farthers although being unsure about the antichrist's identification, understand the empire being the one that restrains. Some connections have been drawn with Daniel Chapter 7, that the empire will fall and then 10 horns arise, the little one will subdue the other 3. Nero cannot be the case because, the empire has not falled yet. 

The antichrist being a single man is not a Biblical teaching, but popish teaching. Such works cannot be done by an individual but a succession of individuals. And also, there cannot be any individual who can live for 1260 years of age. 

Also, the scripture puts no light weight to this doctrine, as it was repeated in several occasions, that we should take heed to it. 

Some yet future antichrist theory is popish invention, being held by many Christians today, is another powerful evidence that many who think they are not under any influence of the Pope, but actually are drunk by her cup of fornication and other false doctrines. 



> 12. Q. Is not the Pope of Rome the head of the church?
> 
> A. No; he is the Antichrist.
> 
> 13. Q. Why so?
> 
> A. Because every thing is fulfilled in him that was foretold of the Antichrist.



Quote from Abraham Hellenbroek's A Specimen of Divine Truths


----------



## kalawine

puritanpilgrim said:


> I hold to the confessions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just believe the Bible.
Click to expand...


Yes... and this is the response that any Jehovah's Witness would give you.


----------



## Confessor

kalawine said:


> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to the confessions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just believe the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... and this is the response that any Jehovah's Witness would give you.
Click to expand...


Aaron was just being sarcastic.

Speaking of which, I despise when people say, "I just believe the Bible" -- when they're not joking, that is.


----------



## kalawine

Confessor said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just believe the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... and this is the response that any Jehovah's Witness would give you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaron was just being sarcastic.
> 
> Speaking of which, I despise when people say, "I just believe the Bible" -- when they're not joking, that is.
Click to expand...


Oops! Sorry! That one went over my head. C'mon guys... I'm only 5' 6" 

-----Added 5/23/2009 at 10:28:39 EST-----



kevin.carroll said:


> No, JM. I just think the confessions there are guilty of a dispensational type error, i.e. reading the Scriptures in light of their times and not the other way around.
> 
> The RCC did not exist when Paul wrote, so it seems ludicrous to think that is what he referred to.



 Good point.


----------



## Confessor

kalawine said:


> Oops! Sorry! That one went over my head. C'mon guys... I'm only 5' 6"



No worries, I did not realize it was sarcasm myself until he pointed it out with several dictionary definitions. 



kevin.carroll said:


> The RCC did not exist when Paul wrote, so it seems ludicrous to think that is what he referred to.



I wouldn't say it's anywhere near ludicrous. Prophecies do not have to be _realized_ at the same point they are _spoken_. E.g., OT prophets could declare the future existence of the Messiah and describe his characteristics without his present existence.


----------



## Peairtach

Re the Reformers viewing things from their own time, remember that the Papacy still claims 1 billion people as its own.

Any future individual, or past individual like Nero, would have to do well to take so many to Hell with him, over such a long period of time. Saying that I don't know how many of these billion are secularists, devout Romanists or if some have stumbled on the truth. No doubt many of them are spiritually deluded or otherwise badly affected for eternity by their experience of Romanism. 

The book of Revelation thankfully teaches that statist deception/persecution (the First Beast), ecclesiastical/spiritual deception/persecution (the Second Beast; including the Papacy) and the apostate Church (Babylon; including the Church of Rome) will be done away with *in history.*


----------



## Confessor

I recently listened to Rev. Silversides's sermon on the Antichrist (linked above), and he makes a very good point: rather than the Reformers and Puritans being constrained by their times, it is _those who deny the papacy is the Antichrist_ who are constrained by their times. In a time now of political correctness, where we shouldn't resist false doctrine if the people are nice, it can be very easy to see why this is the case.

Please note that this is not intended to be an isolated definitive argument for the papacy's being the Antichrist; I have said it rather to push the fact that those who easily brush aside the issue, because the Reformers and Puritans were allegedly constrained by their times, need to look much more closely at the historic Protestant arguments and at their own situations.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Confessor said:


> He is blasphemously referred to as the _Good Shepherd_ and _Heavenly Father_, titles that should be reserved for God, thereby exalting himself to the status of God.



_Holy_ Father and _Shepherd_ (minus the 'Good'). In the RCC 'Heavenly Father' is reserved for God alone; 'Good Shepherd' for Christ alone. 

Not that calling a man 'Holy Father' is a good thing...


----------



## JM

Does anyone want to change their vote?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It is quite interesting to me that the vote is nearly in complete 1/3's...


----------



## Reformed Thomist

JM said:


> Does anyone want to change their vote?



Dunno. Ah jus' be-leeve the Bah-ble.


----------



## Skyler

This is an easy question. The answer is a definite "maybe".

It's possible that the papacy was in mind, as it technically began with Constantine, which was only a couple hundred years away from the time Paul wrote.

It's also possible that the papacy was not in mind. Not having done any sort of intensive study into the area, I cannot say one way or the other.


----------



## historyb

JM said:


> Does anyone want to change their vote?


I would change mine to unsure


----------



## YXU

Confessor said:


> I recently listened to Rev. Silversides's sermon on the Antichrist (linked above), and he makes a very good point: rather than the Reformers and Puritans being constrained by their times, it is _those who deny the papacy is the Antichrist_ who are constrained by their times. In a time now of political correctness, where we shouldn't resist false doctrine if the people are nice, it can be very easy to see why this is the case.



Good point.


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Thomist said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is blasphemously referred to as the _Good Shepherd_ and _Heavenly Father_, titles that should be reserved for God, thereby exalting himself to the status of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Holy_ Father and _Shepherd_ (minus the 'Good'). In the RCC 'Heavenly Father' is reserved for God alone; 'Good Shepherd' for Christ alone.
> 
> Not that calling a man 'Holy Father' is a good thing...
Click to expand...


Thank you for the correction.


----------



## BoldBeliever

The Papacy is definitely heretical. It is NOT the antichrist, it doesn't fit the Apostle John's definition of what an antichrist is. The whole singular antichrist idea is unbiblical from the git-go. 

The man of sin is not an individual, it's a category, just as 'man of God' is a category when Paul uses it of Timothy. 

Gog (Satan) and Magog (godless unbelievers) rise up against the church worldwide at the end of the millennium. My personal opinion is that we are there now. Christian influence has all but ceased to exist worldwide. 

Paul stated several things in 2 Thess 2:

1. Jesus would NOT come until the apostasy came first. If you don't believe that we are in a complete utter worldwide state of apostasy in the Christian church, you've been living in a cave somewhere.

2. The apostasy and the man of sin are connected by an 'and', which tells me that they are related. *"Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed--the one who brings destruction.*" *(NLT)

3. The man of sin _believes himself to be God_ and _hates the idea of a supernatural god of any kind._ Again from the NLT:

*"He will exalt himself and defy every god there is and tear down every object of adoration and worship. He will position himself in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God."*

Now from the Humanist Manifesto II:

The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. *We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. *Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, *unlock vast new powers*, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster. Faced with apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday scenarios, many flee in despair from reason and embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal and retreat.

*Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.*

Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality - not for the favored few, but for all of humankind. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.

A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life.

Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world. But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. *Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. *Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation.

*We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action - positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale.*

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.

Religion

FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

* We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the "God Is Dead" theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
*
SECOND: *Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.* They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. *There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. *We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

Ethics

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind's sense of wonder is continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along with religion and ethics.

There's your man of sin. Anyone who believes that drivel is the man of sin. 

4. Something is restraining that man of sin until 'his time'. 
 TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE. Why technology? Because in Paul's day there was insufficient technology for mankind to think of itself as God on a worldwide basis. Now man is capable of almost anything. Think of the words of the LORD concerning the time before Noah. *Then the LORD* saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.* It is the knowledge that allows the lying wonders that make Magog-man believe he is god-like.

5. Man sits in the temple already. The human body is the temple of God, for God is spirit.  Paul uses the Greek word _naos_ for temple in this application; the very innermost part of the temple, the Holy of Holies. This corresponds to our heart. 

6.  Once the knowledge base is there, the true intent of godless Man is revealed *Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,*... Who else but Satan (Gog) could spew forth some of the ideas mankind has been coming up lately? Test-tube babies, aborticide, tolerance of homosexuality, euthanasia and so forth and so on.

7. These people are irredeemable, they refuse all instruction and for this, just as He did at the First Destruction, God gives them over to their rampant evil deeds.
 Just as God gave over the antidiluvians, He gives over the Magogites to their eternal destruction. (Romans 1) Furthermore, listen to what the Spirit inspires Paul to write concerning them:

*"...and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,..." *I have deliberately melded two versions NASB and NKJV here because I believe they best express Paul's point. Please notice "THE lie" rather than A LIE. I believe that is very important. What is THE lie? Oh come now, surely we all know the answer to this:

*“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil."* Gen 3:4, 5. 

There it is: THE lie. The very first lie, the one that condemned our race in the beginning is the one that will condemn it in the end. 

There no antichrist dictator obviously trying to conquer the planet. There is an evil angel though, hell-bent on destroying those made in the image of God. He has come up from his prison and is leading the Wicked in the great final battle against the Holy City.


----------



## Parsifal23

I favour Ken Gentery's view of 2 Thessiloanians Chapter 2 but ThePapaecy seems the other most logical choice I just dont think The Papacey is THE Antichirst it's an Anticchrist but not THE Antichrist


----------



## BoldBeliever

Since the term _antichristos_ was apparently intended of John to specifically refer to the Gnostic heretics, can we really include anyone other than the Gnostics in the term? I'm not sure we can. It seems obvious that the term has already been mistakenly mixed in with other terms that it should not be associated with, continuing to use it in that vain only causes more confusion.


----------



## dudley

Puritan coventar, Randy is correct: 
The RC church deny and pronounce an anathema upon all who believe in justification by faith alone? Is that not denying the Person and work of Christ? They deny the Father and the Son in their denial of election. For if any man or angel bring you another gospel let him be accursed. If the RC's are accursed aren't they denying the Father and the Son?

The spirit of anti-Christ is to deny that Christ came in the flesh. It is a denial of his work. They do deny his work and set themselves up as the Thessalonian s passage speaks.[/QUOTE]

Furthermore the Westminster confession of faith as well as the London baptist Confession teaches all of us on here as Reformed Protestants that the papacy is an evil antichrist institution and the pope is thus also an antichist.

Again as a reminder if we confess to the Reformed beliefs of Reformed Protestantism than the papacy is and always has been the antichrist.

I voted the papacy is antichist as well as the pope.

Westminster Confession (1646)

25.6. 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 exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. 

Quote:
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

26.4. 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.


----------



## tman

one of many


----------



## Dao

OPC'n said:


> I believe that Nero was the Anti-Christ.



I've read those second coming (70AD) books. Do you believe Jesus had already came during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?


----------



## Gord

I put my faith in Jesus Christ and thank God for allowing me to know that.

I know nothing of Roman Catholic doctrine, but having attended with my aunt a couple of christmas eve mass's many years ago, I sure was uncomfortable with all the praise they give to Mary, and the Pope and the lack of recognition of the work of Christ as the ONLY means of salvation. As a new Christian, I knew what I was listening to then, was a farce. 

In that sense the Church of Rome is Anti-Christ. We are now in this post just re tracing the foundational footsteps of many great reformers that have brought us to our present day freedom in the saving Grace of our Lord, and freedom from the Anti-Christ teachings of the Church of Rome. I think that Paul was dealing with similar issues with the Church in Thessalonians.


----------



## Brian Withnell

While the original WCF contains the condemnation of the papacy as the Anti-Christ, the version used by the OPC does not. The question itself comes up because people in times past thought the papacy was corrupt (true) called itself the only true church (true) and was a synagogue Satan. Unable to escape their times, they viewed the verse in 2 Th as surely being fulfilled in the papacy. Yet nothing in the scripture itself mentions the pope in Rome (it could not, as that "office" did not exist yet).

We might yet see the RC church turn and repent of her sins of the past 1000 years, and become a true church yet again ... I do not think it appropriate to close that door forever.


----------



## tman

Brian Withnell said:


> We might yet see the RC church turn and repent of her sins of the past 1000 years, and become a true church yet again ...




That would be a truly awesome thing to see.


----------



## JBaldwin

This is an intriguing question. If I had come across this poll a few days ago, I would have answered, I don't know, and I was definitely in the camp of those who didn't care that the WCF took out it's comments about the pope. However, my husband and I watched a lengthy historical documentary on the RCC the other day. It left me completely stunned and almost completely convinced that the papacy is at the very least an anti-Christ, and at the most it is _the_ anti-Christ. I haven't had finished my biblical study on the subject, but if there is one specific anti-Christ, it could very well come from the papacy.


----------



## ewenlin

tman said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> We might yet see the RC church turn and repent of her sins of the past 1000 years, and become a true church yet again ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a truly awesome thing to see.
Click to expand...


I cannot even begin to imagine. It would truly be awesome as you've said. The insurmountable riches of God's grace if indeed it happens!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Brian Withnell said:


> While the original WCF contains the condemnation of the papacy as the Anti-Christ, the version used by the OPC does not. The question itself comes up because people in times past thought the papacy was corrupt (true) called itself the only true church (true) and was a synagogue Satan. Unable to escape their times, they viewed the verse in 2 Th as surely being fulfilled in the papacy. Yet nothing in the scripture itself mentions the pope in Rome (it could not, as that "office" did not exist yet)...



Does not the Scriptures often use imagery to foretell future events/people that does not directly name them? If this is true (and I do not think anyone would argue otherwise) why would 2 Thess 2:4 be required to specifically name the Papacy? It itself mentions the fact it is speaking of the future.


----------



## Peairtach

If the Bible did name the Papacy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Maybe the passages that deal with the Papacy are a test? 

Can we recognise (thinly?) disguised heresy and wickedness without it being spelled out to us in the Bible in words of one syllable?


----------



## DMcFadden

On my way to work today, I was listening to Riddlebarger's series on the Man of Lawlessness. He makes a pretty strong point that preterism takes the eschatological tension of the already/not yet and "solves" the tension by throwing everything into the past. Dispensational eschatology "solves" it by pushing everything off into the future. 

Riddlebarger works deliberately through the texts on the Man of Lawlessness and on the Antichrist. He argues that we canNOT simply assume an identification between the two (e.g., Warfield's warning against such). Instead, it must be proven. Warfield ultimately did not think that a composite of the two could be made. Riddlebarger disagrees, suggesting that the two are the same. Also, John makes it pretty clear that the Antichrist (literally several Antichrists) were already at work in the first century.

Riddlebarger contends that Gentry makes a good case for the identification of Nero as 666 in the first century, certainly a Man of Lawlessness/Antichrist. He opines that the Reformers were correct in identifying the Pope/papacy as a Man of Lawlessness/Antichrist. His counter would be that as long as "the restrainer" is not removed, we have not reached the point of THE Antichrist, an eschatological figure that ought not be dismissed as fulfilled in Nero nor pushed entirely into the future.

Riddlebarger suggests that Vos is correct in saying that we will know THE Antichrist when we see him. Until then, we ought to contend against the spirit of antichrist evident in every age. At the end of time, there will be a combination of state power, idolatry, and persecution of believers that will be THE final Antichrist. The papacy not only held "spiritual" power, it also could direct armies to persecute believers, and through the mass it engaged in idolatrous worship. Trifecta for Antichrist in Riddlebarger's mind (as was Nero).

So . . . was Nero Antichrist? Yes.
Is the papacy of Reformation days Antichrist? Yes.
Will there be an Antichrist yet to come? Yes.

At least that would be one "take" on it from a contemporary orthodox amillennialist.


----------



## Grillsy

JBaldwin said:


> This is an intriguing question. If I had come across this poll a few days ago, I would have answered, I don't know, and I was definitely in the camp of those who didn't care that the WCF took out it's comments about the pope. However, my husband and I watched a lengthy historical documentary on the RCC the other day. It left me completely stunned and almost completely convinced that the papacy is at the very least an anti-Christ, and at the most it is _the_ anti-Christ. I haven't had finished my biblical study on the subject, but if there is one specific anti-Christ, it could very well come from the papacy.



What was the name of the that documentary if you don't mind telling?


----------

