# Pope as the AntiChrist



## Ezekiel3626 (Feb 8, 2007)

Recently, a brother had made remarks about supporting the 1689 with only minor exceptions. When asked what these were, one of his responses was :


> The 1689 declares the Pope as the Anti-Christ and as a Christian, I can’t dogmatically claim that although he may an anti-Christ.


 I was wondering if anyone would care to comment on their agreement with the statements in both confessions which declare this :


> The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. 1689 BCOF 26.4





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


----------



## SRoper (Feb 8, 2007)

The American version of the WCF has removed this statement. I believe that while the statment may be true, it does not belong in a confessional document. Interpreting providence is a difficult thing.


----------



## elnwood (Feb 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> The American version of the WCF has removed this statement. I believe that while the statment may be true, it does not belong in a confessional document. Interpreting providence is a difficult thing.



 

FYI, it is an interpretation of this verse:

[bible]2 thessalonians 2:1-12[/bible]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 8, 2007)

This has been a point of contention on the Puritan Board in the past between those who hold to the Puritan and historically Reformed view of the Antichrist and those who do not. I believe the Westminster Divines and London Baptists were wise to make it a confessional doctrine, following the lead of the Reformers and others. There are many threads on this subject if you want to search the archives.

For further reading on this subject, I would suggest the following from a previous post:



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I would recommend the following resources for your studies on this subject:
> 
> Francis Turretin's _Seventh Disputation: Whether it can be proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist_
> J.A. Wylie's _The Pope of Rome is the Antichrist_
> ...


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Feb 9, 2007)

Thank you Andrew, I will take some time and read these suggestions carefully. For what it's worth, let it be known that it is not my intent to be divisive, either on this board, or in my personal dealings. I value the opinions and convictions of most on Puritanboard, and I am thankful to the Lord Jesus Christ for the gifts he has given. I felt that this was a valid question, and I desire to know more about the reformed faith.


----------



## puritan lad (Feb 9, 2007)

There is always a tendency to interpret Bible Prophecy from current events. It has been that way for thousands of years, and unfortunately the puritans weren't above that.

See Antichrist: The Biblical View


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 9, 2007)

Ezekiel3626 said:


> Thank you Andrew, I will take some time and read these suggestions carefully. For what it's worth, let it be known that it is not my intent to be divisive, either on this board, or in my personal dealings. I value the opinions and convictions of most on Puritanboard, and I am thankful to the Lord Jesus Christ for the gifts he has given. I felt that this was a valid question, and I desire to know more about the reformed faith.



It's a very valid question, brother, and I commend your studies on this subject. God bless!


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 9, 2007)

You have to also understand the context in which they were writing. 17th Century in England. Think of what is going on religiously and monarchially (that is a word I made up, thank you). The RC church had a much more hold on state relations at that time and so they had to defend against it. 

Today, in America, I don't believe the statement is needed; it can be left in (for an historical reason) or it can be excluded. However, we must be careful about what we take out. We will become liberals if we just keep removing things.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 9, 2007)

Im waiting for the PCUSA to come out with a gender neutral WCF called the T-WCF!


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 9, 2007)

SRoper said:


> The American version of the WCF has removed this statement. I believe that while the statment may be true, it does not belong in a confessional document. Interpreting providence is a difficult thing.



 
The problem with the identification is that it is not deduced by "good and necessary consequence" from Scripture so the affirmation is contrary to the Confession's own stated view of Scripture. The papacy is certainly "an" Antichirst and I believe it is even *the* Antichrist. The Scriptural shoe fits and I've even read where it was held that the Reformation was the mortal wound spoken of Rev. 13. Again, very compelling but how can anyone know for sure?


----------



## CDM (Feb 9, 2007)

Well, to the Reformers and Divines there were no other possible positions one could take. Who or what else could it or can it be other than the self-proclaimed Christ on earth?

Really, what institution, what group, better fits the bill? I can't name one other plausible alternative. 

Unless your eschatology is based on Left Behind, I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.


----------



## jenney (Feb 9, 2007)

mangum said:


> Well, to the Reformers and Divines there were no other possible positions one could take. Who or what else could it or can it be other than the self-proclaimed Christ on earth?


I agree with this entirely. If calling oneself the substitute for Christ and claiming the authority to forgive sin aren't showing himself as God, it is hard to imagine what would be!



> Really, what institution, what group, better fits the bill? I can't name one other plausible alternative.


I can't either. However, my idea of what is plausible isn't the best way to determine truth!  

I prefer it in the Confessions because it seems that for this day and age it is more necessary than ever. The reformation is over. The protestant churches in America have by and large compromised the gospel to the point that they see the Catholic church as a legitimate denomination within the pale of orthodoxy (or maybe that should be the "pail"). I think this demands an explicit rejection of the Roman Catholic (false) gospel and the confession a good place for it.

OTOH, I can see the wisdom in recognizing that we might be wrong about our interpretation of the antichrist and we don't want our confession to bind anyone's conscience where Christ has given liberty.

I think it's good to consider such things, especially in light of the occasional accusations we receive that we "worship the confession". It demonstrates that the confession is subordinate to the Word of God, not equal with it when we dare question it and examine it in light of the Word.


----------



## Peter (Feb 9, 2007)

SRoper said:


> The American version of the WCF has removed this statement. I believe that while the statment may be true, it does not belong in a confessional document. Interpreting providence is a difficult thing.



This in an interesting perspective. Assuming the papacy is the Anti-Christ, why would it be wrong to include a statement in the confession acknowledging it? The question is more a q. about the nature and authority of creeds then eschatology, but what are your thoughts?


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2007)

The Confession is making an ecclesiological statement. No one doubts that it is appropriate for the Confession to refute transubstantiation in the language of Scripture. Why should it be inappropriate for the same Confession to adopt the language of Scripture to refute the idea of a visible head of the church? It appears to me that the difficulty lies in a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations. Blessings!


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 9, 2007)

mangum said:


> Well, to the Reformers and Divines there were no other possible positions one could take. Who or what else could it or can it be other than the self-proclaimed Christ on earth?
> 
> Really, what institution, what group, better fits the bill? I can't name one other plausible alternative.



I can't think of any institution or group that better fits the bill either and I quite agree I believe the papacy is the Antichrist. That said, the Confession plainly states: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added . . . ." Therefore it follows that since the Antichrist is not explicitly identified in Scripture as the papacy, and, since it cannot be validly inferred from Scripture, it should not be part and parcel of the positive affirmations of the Confession. It remains a very plausible opinion. Ecclesiological statements not withstanding, If someone can provide a valid deduction from Scripture in support of this doctrine I would love to see it. 

The difference between the positive confession that the pope is **The Antichirst** and a refutation of transubstantiation, is that transubstantiation is rejected as being contrary to Scripture and the Scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper is positively affirmed (i.e., validly deduced from Scripture). There are many things which are contrary to Scripture and a few of those are even mentioned in Scripture, but there are a lot of things which do not comport with Scripture yet are not included in the Confession. I think all positive affirmations ought to follow the Confessional principle clearly express in WCF I:VI and this has nothing to do with a "modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations." It's just simple logic.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2007)

Sean, the apostles proved Jesus was the Christ on the basis of a twofold process of argument. (1) What the Old Testament Scriptures foretold. (2.) What Jesus of Nazareth had fulfilled. The first was the major premise, the second was the minor premise. The conclusion was certain. By the same process of reasoning a Christian comes to understand that he is in fact a Christian. The major is found in the Scriptural description of a Christian, and the minor is found in the conscience bearing a person witness in the Holy Spirit that he is what Scripture describes. The exact same process of reasoning is used to determine false believers, false teachers, antichrists, and THE ANTICHRIST.

All deductions of Scripture are based on a consideration not explicitly stated in Scripture, and must therefore be accounted a mere opinion according to your preconceived epistemic commitment.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Sean, the apostles proved Jesus was the Christ on the basis of a twofold process of argument. (1) What the Old Testament Scriptures foretold. (2.) What Jesus of Nazareth had fulfilled. The first was the major premise, the second was the minor premise. The conclusion was certain. By the same process of reasoning a Christian comes to understand that he is in fact a Christian. The major is found in the Scriptural description of a Christian, and the minor is found in the conscience bearing a person witness in the Holy Spirit that he is what Scripture describes. The exact same process of reasoning is used to determine false believers, false teachers, antichrists, and THE ANTICHRIST.
> 
> All deductions of Scripture are based on a consideration not explicitly stated in Scripture, and must therefore be accounted a mere opinion according to your preconceived epistemic commitment.


 
 Thank you, Rev. Winzer.


----------



## ADKing (Feb 10, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Think of what is going on religiously and monarchially (that is a word I made up, thank you).
> 
> Today, in America, I don't believe the statement is needed; it can be left in (for an historical reason) or it can be excluded. However, we must be careful about what we take out. We will become liberals if we just keep removing things.



My dictionary has monarchially in it  

I agree that removing things without very great warrant is dangerous. However, I would also add that leaving statements and doctrines in official creeds that no one is expected to believe, teach or practice for "historical reasons" also is a path toward liberalism. This is essentially what the mainline church did with whole creeds in 1967 when it adopted its "Book of Confessions"

For what it's worth, I adhere to the original version. The Rev. David Silversides has a short book on this topic that is helpful.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 10, 2007)

> The Confession is making an ecclesiological statement. No one doubts that it is appropriate for the Confession to refute transubstantiation in the language of Scripture. Why should it be inappropriate for the same Confession to adopt the language of Scripture to refute the idea of a visible head of the church? *It appears to me that the difficulty lies in a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations.* Blessings!



And, just so we have both your points clearly before our minds:



armourbearer said:


> Sean, the apostles proved Jesus was the Christ on the basis of a twofold process of argument. (1) What the Old Testament Scriptures foretold. (2.) What Jesus of Nazareth had fulfilled. The first was the major premise, the second was the minor premise. The conclusion was certain. By the same process of reasoning a Christian comes to understand that he is in fact a Christian. The major is found in the Scriptural description of a Christian, and the minor is found in the conscience bearing a person witness in the Holy Spirit that he is what Scripture describes. The exact same process of reasoning is used to determine false believers, false teachers, antichrists, and THE ANTICHRIST.
> 
> All deductions of Scripture are based on a consideration not explicitly stated in Scripture, and must therefore be accounted a mere opinion according to your preconceived epistemic commitment.



Let's take a look at the WCF again:



> The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: *unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.*



First, since the Apostle Paul was also in the process of completing God's special revelation as were the other NT writers, Paul was arguing from the position of what God had already revealed in Christ. Your analogy fails because both major and minor premises are matters of special revelation.

Second, the Confession also states:



> The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.



Oddly, nowhere in this rule of interpretations did the Divines see fit to include "concrete historical situations" as a means by which we can arrive at Scripture's true meaning. Yet, you claim it is "a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations." Chalk one up for modern reluctance. 

Third, you admit above that your minor premise is drawn from "concrete historical situations." Since it follows that these "concrete historical situations" are not expressly set down in Scripture, nor are they derived by any necessary deductions from Scripture, you have done exactly what the Confession forbids and have added to Scripture by raising so-called "concrete historical situations" to a level on par with Scripture and have raised "concrete historical situations" to the Confessional level. I hope that others see the incredible danger of your approach. The doctrine identifying the pope as THE ANTICHRIST, while arguably true, is not a doctrine of Scripture. 

Your preconceived epistemic commitment concerning "concrete historical situations" has placed you squarely outside of the Reformed tradition. 

Ironically, your method has placed you in the same class as moderns like John Hagee, Hal Lindsey and many other proponents of your method -- including the pope himself -- all of whom freely draw all sorts of inferences from "concrete historical situations" and have made great livings doing so all the while binding men's minds to their teachings. 

But what are these "concrete historical situations" from which you draw your minor premise in support of your conclusion? Are we to understand concrete and historical as relating to facts? And, if facts, what are facts? Are facts therefore true or merely presumed to be true? You seem banefully and blissfully ignorant of the problems of historiography. While Scripture provides the only trustworthy account of history, concerning other matters historians are constantly contradicting themselves. 

To give but one of thousands of possible examples, like many in my country (certainly anyone who grew up in the North), President Lincoln was hailed as the "Great Emancipator" and the man who was willing sacrifice the lives of thousands in order to free the black man from the bondage of forced servitude. While there may have been occasional hints suggesting the "concrete historical situations" surrounding Lincoln and Civil War that perhaps historians weren't in the concrete business at all. More recent historians are discovering that Lincoln was a white supremacist and a dictatorial tyrant. So which Lincoln comports with the "concrete historical situations" and how would you know? The problems inherent in historiography are insurmountable and basically what you want to compel on a confessional level is, at best, an educated guess. 

While I believe the pope certainly fits the bill as a very likely candidate for THE ANTICHRIST, since God did not think it necessary to specifically identify the man or institution, but only provided the means by which we might identify any Antichrist, which would include but is not limited to THE ANTICHRIST, I think amending the Confession had warrant. That does not mean that I am pragmatically opposed to the original wording which identified the pope as THE ANTICHRIST of Revelation. If by it some who are under Rome's bondage might be snatched from the fire, then perhaps raising this minor premise to the confessional level has some benefit . . . however, provided it is understood that this doctrine is unaccounted for in both the explicit and implicit deliverances of Scripture and is an ADDITION to them.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 10, 2007)

Peter said:


> This in an interesting perspective. Assuming the papacy is the Anti-Christ, why would it be wrong to include a statement in the confession acknowledging it? The question is more a q. about the nature and authority of creeds then eschatology, but what are your thoughts?



Confessions and creeds should stick to being summaries of the doctrine contained in scripture.



armourbearer said:


> The Confession is making an ecclesiological statement. No one doubts that it is appropriate for the Confession to refute transubstantiation in the language of Scripture. Why should it be inappropriate for the same Confession to adopt the language of Scripture to refute the idea of a visible head of the church? It appears to me that the difficulty lies in a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations. Blessings!



The American revisions do retain the language that the Pope of Rome is in no way the visible head of the church. This is using scripture to refute the claims of Rome. However, making a positive claim that the Pope is the Antichrist goes too far. They might as link the defeat of the Spanish Armada with some event in Revelation while they are at it. I say leave the interpreting of providence to the dispensationalists.



> By the same process of reasoning a Christian comes to understand that he is in fact a Christian. The major is found in the Scriptural description of a Christian, and the minor is found in the conscience bearing a person witness in the Holy Spirit that he is what Scripture describes.



If the confessions contained language that John Calvin was a saint I would also object.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 10, 2007)

Just out of curiosity, do the Belgic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism contain anything concerning this issue?


----------



## Peter (Feb 10, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Confessions and creeds should stick to being summaries of the doctrine contained in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What do you mean "doctrines contained in scripture?" The Papacy fulfills the prophecies of scripture concerning the Antichrist. In what sense then isn't the doctrine contained in scripture? If you disagree the papacy is the antichrist that is a separate matter but I was interested in why you thought that even if its true it shouldn't be included in the confession.

Are you a total agnostic on the issue of the Antichrist, otherwise aren't you interpreting providence?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Just out of curiosity, do the Belgic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism contain anything concerning this issue?



The Belgic Confession says, Article 36:



> Of Magistrates.
> 
> We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; *that the kingdom of Anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted.*



I have no doubt that Guido de Bres, author of the Belgic Confession, was referring to the Roman Papacy, by whose authority he was later martyred.

The Heidelberg Catechism does not make explicit reference to Anti-Christ, so far as I know, but one of the authors, Zacharius Ursinsus, does so in his commentary on the Catechism.

In his Special Prolegomena, concerning the design of catechism, p. 16, he says:



> A neglect of the catechism is, therefore, one of the chief causes why there are so many at the present day tossed about by every wind of doctrine, and why so many fall from Christ to *Anti-Christ*.



Later, on Q. 80, concerning the difference between the Lord's Supper and the Mass, p. 423, he says:



> From what has now been said, *it is evident that the mass is an idol, formed by Anti-Christ out of various accursed errors and blasphemies*, and substituted in the place of the Lord's supper, which, for this reason, is properly and necessarily abolished.



While, the explicit declaration of the Westminster Confession on this point is not to found in the Belgic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism, there is no doubt that Guido de Bres and Zacharius Ursinus and their adherents were among the company of Reformers who acknowledged the Papacy to be Anti-Christ.

I would also take note of the third element of the Three Forms of Unity: the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. The introduction to which says:



> With like favour our faithful Saviour hath given a testimony of his gracious presence at this time to the long distressed Church of the Low-Countries. For this Church being by God’s mighty hand set free from the tyranny of the *Romish Antichrist*, & from the fearful idolatry of Popery, so often wonderfully preserved amidst the dangers of a long-continuing war, and flourishing in the concord of true {} doctrine, and of discipline to the praise of her God, the admirable increase of the weal-publick, and joy of all other reformed Churches, hath first covertly, afterwards openly, with manifold both old and new errors been assaulted by one James Harmans, alias Arminius, and his followers, assuming the title of Remonstrants, and brought into so great hazard through the ceaseless turmoils of scandalous dissentions, and schisms, that, had not our Saviour’s merciful hand in time been interposed, these flourishing Churches had been utterly consumed with the horrible flames of discord and schism. But blessed for ever be the Lord, who, after he had for a while hidden his countenance from us (who had many ways provoked his {} wrath and indignation) hath witnessed to the whole world, that he is not forgetful of his covenant, and despiseth not the sighs of his people.


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Feb 11, 2007)

Thanks Andrew!


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2007)

SRoper said:


> The American revisions do retain the language that the Pope of Rome is in no way the visible head of the church. This is using scripture to refute the claims of Rome. However, making a positive claim that the Pope is the Antichrist goes too far.



Remove the reference to the Pope as antichrist, exalting himself IN THE CHURCH, and you are left without an identification of the false church, which it is the duty of all faithful Christians to depart from. Surely THAT is a confessional issue.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 12, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Remove the reference to the Pope as antichrist, exalting himself IN THE CHURCH, and you are left without an identification of the false church, which it is the duty of all faithful Christians to depart from. Surely THAT is a confessional issue.



The Roman state/church is hardly the only false church from which faithful Christians are duty bound to depart from. The Confession also states; "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." I would think it is the duty of all faithful Christians to depart from any synagogue of Satan, whether the pope is its head or not.

Interestingly, the Confession does not state precisely where that demarcation point is where a church, which even the purest is an admixture of truth and error, becomes Satanic. I think we'd all like to think we would know when a particular apostatizing church passed that particular milestone, but I'm convinced many do not. Frankly, I think some Reformed churches have become "synagogues of Satan" despite their denominational affiliation (and in some cases because if their affiliation). 

To make things easy, I think Doug Wilson's CREC falls into this category and it is the duty of all faithful Christians to separate from that body and Wilson doesn't even pretend to be pope (although he may function as one within their little denomination). Not so easy is the PCA. in my opinion if the PCA courts fail to act decisively and remove the false gospel of the Federal Vision, which is nothing more that warmed over Romanism, from within her body, or her courts act in such a way as to defacto sanction the teaching of the false gospel of the FV along side the preaching of true gospel, faithful Christians will also be duty bound to leave the PCA as well. 

As I stated above, I do believe the pope is "that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition." However, as you pointed out, to arrive at this conclusion requires the addition of a minor premise derived from "concrete historical situations" and not from Scripture. Therefore, even granting there are such things as "concrete historical situations," identifying the pope as THE ANTICHRIST is not a biblical doctrine. It is a hybrid doctrine resulting from a combination of biblical and non-biblical premises.

I don't know if the reasons I've stated are the reasons the American Presbyterian churches amended the WCF (I wouldn't be at all surprised if what I've argued had absolutely no bearing on the decision to amend), but I think they are good reasons nonetheless. Do you or does anyone know what the reason was for amending the Confession, at least officially? I've read Hodge's discussion of why the Confession was amended concerning the role of the civil magistrate, but I've never read why identifying the pope as the Antichrist was removed?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 12, 2007)

Ezekiel3626 said:


> Thanks Andrew!



You're welcome, brother! 



Magma2 said:


> I don't know if the reasons I've stated are the reasons the American Presbyterian churches amended the WCF (I wouldn't be at all surprised if what I've argued had absolutely no bearing on the decision to amend), but I think they are good reasons nonetheless. Do you or does anyone know what the reason was for amending the Confession, at least officially? I've read Hodge's discussion of why the Confession was amended concerning the role of the civil magistrate, but I've never read why identifying the pope as the Antichrist was removed?



It is my understanding that the American Westminster Confession of Faith retained the confessional statement that the Pope is Antichrist until 1903, when it was revised in the context of a series of amendments and a Declaratory Statement. There is a discussion of the 1903 changes here, here and here. 

It is also my understanding that both Thornwell and Hodge, while on opposite sides of the 19th century debate over the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, both agreed that the Roman Papacy was antichrist. For a discussion of this, see here.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 12, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> It is my understanding that the American Westminster Confession of Faith retained the confessional statement that the Pope is Antichrist until 1903, when it was revised in the context of a series of amendments and a Declaratory Statement. There is a discussion of the 1903 changes here, here and here.



Thanks for the links Andrew, however none of the links provides the arguments _why_ the specific identification of the pope as the Antichrist was removed. Interesting articles nonetheless.  



> It is also my understanding that both Thornwell and Hodge, while on opposite sides of the 19th century debate over the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, both agreed that the Roman Papacy was antichrist. For a discussion of this, see here.




I don't disagree that the Roman Papacy was and is antichrist, but that's besides the point. BTW, Trinity Foundation reprinted Thornwell's reply to Hodge in "Sacramental Sorcery." Thornwell's arguments were brilliant.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 12, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> Thanks for the links Andrew, however none of the links provides the arguments _why_ the specific identification of the pope as the Antichrist was removed. Interesting articles nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is true, and I don't have access to the minutes which might shed more light on this point, but the context appears to me to show that the overall tenor of every aspect of the 1903 revisions reflects an effort to amend the Confession for ecumenical reasons. Beyond that, I can't say what their reasons were specifically, but I do think the context of other revisions that were made at the same time is noteworthy.

I just referenced the views of Thornwell and Hodge in the context of your reference to Hodge's discussion of the civil magistrate amendment. Many people, not speaking of you particularly, think that the reference to the Pope being Antichrist was deleted in 1788; however, it was in place throughout the 19th century and not questioned by both sides of the Roman Catholic baptism debate, at least when Thornwell and Hodge were active. This too, I think, is noteworthy. 

The references cited are for the general interest of readers of this thread, and not meant to specifically respond to your comments in full though I was lead to post them after seeing your post.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 12, 2007)

I found a couple of interesting items pertaining to the amending of the Confession concerning the Antichrist. I don't disagree with Andrew that perhaps the "1903 revisions reflects an effort to amend the Confession for ecumenical reasons," however ecumenicism can hardly be the reason the OPC in its formation rejected a number of these Arminian and ecumenical amendments yet retained the new wording concerning the pope. 

From the OPC website:



> The OPC did not accept the 1903 revisions because we regarded them as unscriptural. We retained the earlier revisions because we agreed with them (considering (1) the long section on relationships forbidden for marriage to be unnecessary, (2) *the identification of the Pope as "the Antichrist" as going beyond Scripture,* and (3) the revised statements on church and state to be more scriptural).
> http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=82



I also came across this, but I forgot to copy the web address:



> Machen argued late in 1936 that confessions can be revised, but that his era was not a safe era for revision.(23) Nevertheless, his new denomination accepted two of the revisions of 1903: rejecting the Confession's assertion that the Pope is the antichrist (XXV:6) and rejecting the last trace of the Puritans' theocratic worldview, i.e., which identified as a sin a man's refusal to swear a lawful oath to a lawful authority (XXII:3).(24) To this extent, they acknowledged that Henry van Dyke and his colleagues had been correct and the Westminster Divines had been incorrect. They acknowledged that they had needed modernists to make it institutionally possible for Calvinists to get closer to the truth.



While I lent my Williamson out to a friend, I also came across this from a Standard Bearer review of Williamson’s commentary on the Confession:



> Williamson approves the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s revision of the article identifying Antichrist as the pope. Ominously, he grounds his approval partly in a preterist interpretation of II Thessalonians 2 (with appeal to Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar!).
> http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/volume80/2004aug01.htm



I can’t confirm this at the moment, but if preterism was the reason Williamson approves of the amendment, I find it hard to see how this could be acceptable. An example I suppose of getting to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 12, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> The Belgic Confession says,..



Andrew, you're like the PB genie.  thanks!


----------

