# Pope as Antichrist, Westminster, and 1689 2LBCF



## RevZach

What's more annoying than a newbie on a message board starting a thread on a subject that's been beat to death? I dunno... the mainstream media maybe.

Anyway, my question is a little more nuanced than a broad discussion of whether the pope is the antichrist:

If the Westminster Confession (and its doppleganger, the 2nd London Confession) declare the pope to be antichrist (WCF 25.6), and if agreement with these confessions is a prerequisite for participating on PuritanBoard, then can questioning this teaching get one banned?

I ask because I truly do not believe that Benedict is the Antichrist or an antichrist. I DO AFFIRM what is written in the 2nd London Confession in 2 ways: 1. at the time of writing, the current pope and all popes in recent memory were indeed antichrists, and 2. The papacy itself is prone to the spirit of antichrist (by its confusion of the two kingdoms and its anathemas at Trent). 

I suppose the sub-question is, does our understanding of the confessions (as NON-inspired documents) allow them to be snapshots in time of what a proper understanding of Scripture looked like in its context. I'm certainly not pushing for some "living document" philosophy, but rather for us to consider historical context when applying the confessions as we would with any historical document.

DIG IN!


----------



## Prufrock

No, you are still free to post here; even if membership were solely based upon the WCF and strict adherence to every statement therein, several denominations have received modified forms of the document which have removed that clause.


----------



## RevZach

Prufrock said:


> No, you are still free to post here; even if membership were solely based upon the WCF and strict adherence to every statement therein, several denominations have received modified forms of the document which have removed that clause.



For some reason, I had always thought that the Philadelphia Baptist Confession (1742?) had removed this passage, but I just looked it up and they retain it.


----------



## VilnaGaon

Richard Baxter in his Christian Directory stated that he does not know if the Pope is the Antichrist or not, but it is unfortunate that he bears so many of the marks of the Antichrist. That was written in the 17th Century. The Roman Papacy has since added more abominable and blasphemous doctrines such as Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary to its Standards.


----------



## Hungus

Don't forget the 5 Marian Dogmas. The Pope pronounces a different Gospel, a different Godhead and a different method of salvation. However having said all of that I only see a few scriptural definitions of Antichrist:


> 1 John 2:18
> 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 2:22
> Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.





> 1 John 4:3
> and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.





> 2 John 1:7
> For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.



Given this rather narrow definition of antichrist I have to say the current pope is not antichrist. However he is not a Christian either as the Marian Dogmas violate The Athanasian Creed specifically by making Mary co redemptrix.

Now if the Divines meant antichrist as in against Christ then I would argue the entire Catholic church as an organization is apostate and anti-Christ, but if they had meant that they would not have used the definite article.


----------



## Scott1

A couple revisions were made in the American adopted Presbyterian versions and do not have that for most denominations (e.g. PCA, OPC).

Many might understand this as being "anti" in the general sense, but not in a specific eschatological sense.


----------



## gkterry

Jacob:

Thanks for the "excuse" to get out my Christian Directory! 

The exact quote from Richard Baxter concerning the passages in Thessalonians and Revelations:

"That if the pope be not he, he had ill luck to be so like him."

A Christian Directory, by Richard Baxter
Soli Deo Gloria Publications
Page 631


----------



## Herald

Speaking as a confessional Baptist, I have no problem with the LBC's view on the papacy. While the Pope may not be THE antichrist, the office of the papacy, and the whole Roman system, is the spirit of antichrist. 

How relevant is that view today? Consider that many Christian denominations seek dialog and understanding with Rome. They are willing to set aside immutable truth for the sake of tolerance. Being reminded that Rome and the papacy are enemies of Christ bridges the gap between a 17th century document and the age we live in.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Previously posted on another thread:



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 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, ..._​


----------



## JennyG

Does the "anti" in this context mean against? I always understood it was more "in the place of", as in "standing in for", and in fact a fairly exact equivalent to the Latin "vicarius". Which makes it striking (at least) that the pope has always styled himself "Vicar of Christ"


----------



## Herald

JennyG said:


> Does the "anti" in this context mean against? I always understood it was more "in the place of", as in "standing in for", and in fact a fairly exact equivalent to the Latin "vicarius". Which makes it striking (at least) that the pope has always styled himself "Vicar of Christ"



Jenny, "anti" means the "opposite of" or "in opposition to". In the context of the antichrist; anyone or any system that sets itself up in opposition to Christ would be an antichrist or the spirit of antichrist.


----------



## Herald

JennyG said:


> Does the "anti" in this context mean against? I always understood it was more "in the place of", as in "standing in for", and in fact a fairly exact equivalent to the Latin "vicarius". Which makes it striking (at least) that the pope has always styled himself "Vicar of Christ"



Jenny, For what it's worth Fife is where my paternal grandparents are from. Kirkcaldy, Fife to be exact.


----------



## louis_jp

JennyG said:


> Does the "anti" in this context mean against? I always understood it was more "in the place of", as in "standing in for", and in fact a fairly exact equivalent to the Latin "vicarius". Which makes it striking (at least) that the pope has always styled himself "Vicar of Christ"



I think there are connotations of both. Hence the language in 2 Thess. 2:4: "who opposes and exalts himself... so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."


----------



## SolaScriptura

Herald said:


> Speaking as a confessional Baptist, I have no problem with the LBC's view on the papacy. While the Pope may not be THE antichrist, the office of the papacy, and the whole Roman system, is the spirit of antichrist.
> 
> How relevant is that view today? Consider that many Christian denominations seek dialog and understanding with Rome. They are willing to set aside immutable truth for the sake of tolerance. Being reminded that Rome and the papacy are enemies of Christ bridges the gap between a 17th century document and the age we live in.



I think you're spot on with your assessment of both the papacy as antichrist and the continued relevance of that portion of the Standards for today.


----------



## JennyG

Herald said:


> Jenny, For what it's worth Fife is where my paternal grandparents are from. Kirkcaldy, Fife to be exact.



Well, what do you know?
Friendly greetings across the world, ex-Fifer! Kirkcaldy is also the stamping-ground of another Brown, Prime Minister Gordon -- he isn't a relation is he? he is a son of the Manse as I expect you know.
I don't live very near by Scottish standards, though maybe by US reckoning I ought to say it's just down the road -- to us it's a distant metropolis, while we live in the sticks, aka the East Neuk of Fife. What does For what it's worth mean?

I've just had a quick look in my old Liddell and Scott and there, just as louis_jp says, both shades of meaning are found, I think more examples of the "in place of". Of course that's Classical Greek.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is something I posted on the RBLIST. 



> One of the main contentions about the confession is in Chapter 26.4. I know many people have a problem with chapter 26 and the Roman Pope being called anti-Christ.
> 
> 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, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
> ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )
> 
> 
> Concerning the Anti-Christ I find Matthew Winzer's explanation on the WCF on this topic to be very beneficial and I can put my fingers around it.
> 
> Reverend Matthew Winzer stated to me and I agree with him concerning Chapter 26.4.
> 
> This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

A.A. Hodge on the passage in question, from his commentary on the WCF...

"The word 'Antichrist' occurs in the New Testament in 1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7. The coming of the 'man of sin', the 'son of perdition', is predicted in 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. Interpreters have differed as to whether these phrases were intended to designate a personal opponent of the Lord, or principles and systems antagonistic to him and his cause. The authors of our Confession can hardly have intended to declare that each individual Pope of the long succession is the personal Antichrist, and they probably meant that the Papal system is in spirit, form, and effect, wholly antichristian, and that it marked a defection from apostolical Christianity foreseen and foretold in Scripture. All of which was true in their day, and is true in ours. We have need, however, to remember that as the forms of evil change, and the complications of the kingdom of Christ with that of Satan vary with the progress of events, 'even now are there many Antichrists'. 1 John ii. 18." 

This appears to be all that Dr. Hodge had to say on the matter in his commentary.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Speaking as a confessional Baptist, I have no problem with the LBC's view on the papacy. While the Pope may not be THE antichrist, the office of the papacy, and the whole Roman system, is the spirit of antichrist.
> 
> How relevant is that view today? Consider that many Christian denominations seek dialog and understanding with Rome. They are willing to set aside immutable truth for the sake of tolerance. Being reminded that Rome and the papacy are enemies of Christ bridges the gap between a 17th century document and the age we live in.



What does it say about the state of certain "Reformed" circles that a confessional Baptist brother can see and speak this so clearly, yet others (who are supposed to be confessional and should know better) seek to cozy up to Rome?


----------



## PastorTim

how many of the other teachings of the confessions are we to disregard, and who decides this. This seems important to know


----------



## DonP

Don't disregard it. The Pope usurps the place of Christ in making himself the priest people must go trough, he speaks in the place of Christ as with divine authority and declares in Bull what is truth infallibly. 

Most simply and clearly the Pope displays that he is indeed the anti-Christ is when he, whoever he may be at the time, takes on himself to usurp the royal prerogative of Christ as Head of the church. 

So whoever would take the place of Christ is The anti-Christ. The Roman Church also being against the true church is an anti-Christ system, so the person is the anti-Christ. Though there be many anti-Christs this is not a problem to say the one who publicly would usurp Christ's place is against Christ, and replaces Christ so is the anti-Christ. 
You can debate how this may fit into the vision of Revelation but clearly the current Pope as well as any would take this office is the anti-Christ. 

The current anti-Christ. The anti-Christ among other anti-Christs who would usurp Christ's priestly role, kingly role or infallible word of God Prophet role. 
I think one could also at the same time say the King of England is also the anti-Christ were he to claim to be Head of the church, as opposed to language some accepted, head of the church on earth. 

I have no problem seeing their language to see the current Pope as the anti-Christ


----------



## VilnaGaon

JennyG said:


> Does the "anti" in this context mean against? I always understood it was more "in the place of", as in "standing in for", and in fact a fairly exact equivalent to the Latin "vicarius". Which makes it striking (at least) that the pope has always styled himself "Vicar of Christ"



J.A Wylie in his book on the Papacy would agree with you. 
In my humble opinion the Pope by calling himself the substitute or Vicar of Christ Effectively denies that Jesus is THE Christ and that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Thus the pope is the Antichrist. Seems clear and plain to me.


----------



## dudley

*The reformers renounced the pope*

I have written many articles on this PB site about my faith journey from roman catholic to Reformed Prebyterian Protestant. You may read them if you like. I follow now the Westminter Standards and I renounced the pope, the papacy and the roman catholic church as did John Calvin and all the Protestant reformers. I wrote in one paper "It was then that I openly stated and wrote to many that I renounce the errors and pretensions of roman catholicism and its false teachings and I furhter disclaim her bishop of Rome, the pope to be the succesor of Peter and the head of Christs church. It was then I began to not only renounce the pope but roman catholicism entirely." 


In grace,
Dudley


----------



## Peairtach

The Papacy is the Big Daddy of all antichrists i.e. It is the Antichrist. There are many other antichrists e.g. Liberal theology, but the Papacy is the arch-antichrist. See other threads on this subject.

He sits enthroned in the visible church of Christ, claiming the offices and functions of Christ.


----------



## JM

> Reverend Matthew Winzer stated to me and I agree with him concerning Chapter 26.4.
> 
> This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.




I think we can all agree with Rev. Winzer, thank you for posting that....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> Reverend Matthew Winzer stated to me and I agree with him concerning Chapter 26.4.
> 
> This is a little off topic, but the Holy Spirit speaks of many antichrists as well as the antichrist. I think the Confession is quite right to do so. But as I've had cause to say before, chapter 25 of the Confession is dealing with ecclesiology not eschatology. Propositionally therefore the statement about the antichrist only requires us to affirm (1.) that Christ alone is the head of the church, (2.) that the antichrist falsely assumes that headship, and (3.) the Pope, in falsely assuming that headship, acts as the antichrist. It's worth pointing out that because the confessional statement interprets the apostle's language as referring to a system rather than an individual man, it leaves open the possibility of a future development of the antichristian system of Papal Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree with Rev. Winzer, thank you for posting that....
Click to expand...


 I think the problem arises when people look at "antichrist" in the Confession and think of Antichrist a la Tim LaHaye.


----------



## Peairtach

Isn't there a thread or threads on this elsewhere? Gets a bit boring.

The Papacy is the Big Daddy - sorry I see I'm repeating myself - of all antichrists (other antichrists are Liberal Theology, Gnosticism, Arianism, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, Christian Science, etc, etc ; anything that retains the name Christian/Christianity while denying the saving reality of Jesus Christ; hence Nero, statist persecution, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, secular humanism, atheism/agnosticism, Communism, Fascism/Nazism, etc, are also enemies of Christ and Christianity, but are not antichrists)

The Westminter divines were right to identify the Papacy as the  Antichrist.

See Patrick Fairbairn's "Interpretation of Prophecy". He is very good on this topic.

The Papacy is also an antichrist that has stood the test of time, has taken millions to Hell, and still is. I don't know if Satan has devised a more successful antichrist, and he's devised a few.

I believe the Bible predicts the overthrow of the Papacy long before the end of the world.


----------



## Spinningplates2

RevZach said:


> I ask because I truly do not believe that Benedict is the Antichrist or an antichrist. I DO AFFIRM what is written in the 2nd London Confession in 2 ways: 1.
> DIG IN!



Do you think that the Pope is saved? Do you think he is simply misunderstood? What has he renounced from the past Antichrist that have held the same post?


----------



## Peairtach

_I ask because I truly do not believe that Benedict is the Antichrist or an antichrist. I DO AFFIRM what is written in the 2nd London Confession in 2 ways: 1. at the time of writing, the current pope and all popes in recent memory were indeed antichrists, and 2. The papacy itself is prone to the spirit of antichrist (by its confusion of the two kingdoms and its anathemas at Trent). _

If the Papacy is a successful antichrist most people aren't going to recognise it though it's staring them in the face - even some Reformed theologians and pastors who subscribe to most of the WCF. It's a mystery of lawlessness, only recognised by careful comparison of Scripture. No-one would see it at all if it wasn't revealed in the Bible

The Roman Church is also a mystery that has been revealed only by Scripture, see Revelation 17. She's not the only harlot (you have Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant Liberalism) but she's the Big Mama of the Harlots. Even the Apostle John wondered at her with great admiration. If that was his response, are we always going to see the reality of things for what they are.

It's like one of these now you see it, now you don't sort of pictures. It's like the beautiful lady who's also a witch or vampire. It's like the Devil coming as an angel of light.

I'm sure Benedict will seem like the charming old man he seems to be, with his Lamb-like horns, over tea and biscuits. But if you pressed Scripture alone, Grace alone, Christ alone, by faith alone you would soon see the language of the Dragon emerge (Rev. 13). Benedict is both deceived and deceiver, otherwise he wouldn't be occupying the office of Antichrist. Through the agency of false prophets - chief of whom is the Papacy - the woman (the early Church) was turned into the whore. 

Christ will redeem and cleanse her from all these things.


----------



## VilnaGaon

Rome is very deceptive, in that they will tell you what they think you want to hear. Read the Jesuit Oath and you will see that they will pose even as a Calvinist just to win you over. What they truely believe is written in the Canons of Trent which have been upheld by Vatican II and the new Catechism they published. That has never changed, and is the true face of Rome.


----------



## YXU

Richard Tallach said:


> Isn't there a thread or threads on this elsewhere? Gets a bit boring.
> 
> The Papacy is the Big Daddy - sorry I see I'm repeating myself - of all antichrists (other antichrists are Liberal Theology, Gnosticism, Arianism, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, Christian Science, etc, etc ; anything that retains the name Christian/Christianity while denying the saving reality of Jesus Christ; hence Nero, statist persecution, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, secular humanism, atheism/agnosticism, Communism, Fascism/Nazism, etc, are also enemies of Christ and Christianity, but are not antichrists)
> 
> The Westminter divines were right to identify the Papacy as the  Antichrist.
> 
> See Patrick Fairbairn's "Interpretation of Prophecy". He is very good on this topic.
> 
> The Papacy is also an antichrist that has stood the test of time, has taken millions to Hell, and still is. I don't know if Satan has devised a more successful antichrist, and he's devised a few.
> 
> I believe the Bible predicts the overthrow of the Papacy long before the end of the world.



Good point. Sadly, this doctrine has been given up or avoided even by the churches who hold to 100% subscription to the confession.


----------



## Pergamum

In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?


----------



## VilnaGaon

Pergamum said:


> In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?



Would not calling himself the Substitute of the Son of God(Vicaris Filii Dei) be in effect a denial of the Lord Jesus coming in the flesh? Not to mention taking on the offices of Christ such as the forgiveness of sins, the Office of High Priest etc.


----------



## Pergamum

VilnaGaon said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would not calling himself the Substitute of the Son of God(Vicaris Filii Dei) be in effect a denial of the Lord Jesus coming in the flesh? Not to mention taking on the offices of Christ such as the forgiveness of sins, the Office of High Priest etc.
Click to expand...


This would accord well with descriptions of the Man of Sin, taking the position of God for himself, but wouldn't really fit with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh, which no Pope has ever done.


----------



## JM

What is meant by "come in the flesh?" Does it mean that Jesus Christ was born of a women? Does this have thing to do with the Marian dogma that Mary was sinless?


----------



## Pergamum

It seems to be a variety of pre-gnostic denial of the physicality of Christ, which the Pope has never asserted.


----------



## JM

Ok. I wasn't sure if it was connected to the idea that Mary was sinless and therefore the "flesh" of Christ would have somehow been different since all flesh, post fall, has been given birth by sinners. 

Thanks.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Pergamum*
_In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this? _

John is firstly addressing the Christians of his day, not us. The antichrist of their day was Christian Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a specific example of an antichrist, the antichrist which was prominent in John's day. It maintained the name "Christian" while denying the truth and power of Christianity. It set up a false, pseudo-Christ in place of the real Christ. Antichrists are particularly dangerous because of the confusion involved, and that the Devil is posing as Christ, Christian, Christianity.

The Papacy does this, as does Liberal Theology. Fairbairn excellently shows that the specific example of an antichrist, gnosticism, isn't the definition of what an antichrist is. An antichrist is any idol that looks superficially or subtly Christian/Christ-like, that's put in Christ's place.

"Christian" Gnosticism was just an early example of an antichrist.

See Patrick Fairbairn's section on Antichrist/antichrists in his "Interpretation of Prophecy" which is online. He explains the passages on this subject more eloquently than I could.


----------



## JennyG

It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean... 
It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?


----------



## Pergamum

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Pergamum*
> _In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this? _
> 
> John is firstly addressing the Christians of his day, not us. The antichrist of their day was Christian Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a specific example of an antichrist, the antichrist which was prominent in John's day. It maintained the name "Christian" while denying the truth and power of Christianity. It set up a false, pseudo-Christ in place of the real Christ. Antichrists are particularly dangerous because of the confusion involved, and that the Devil is posing as Christ, Christian, Christianity.
> 
> The Papacy does this, as does Liberal Theology. Fairbairn excellently shows that the specific example of an antichrist, gnosticism, isn't the definition of what an antichrist is. An antichrist is any idol that looks superficially or subtly Christian/Christ-like, that's put in Christ's place.
> 
> "Christian" Gnosticism was just an early example of an antichrist.
> 
> See Patrick Fairbairn's section on Antichrist/antichrists in his "Interpretation of Prophecy" which is online. He explains the passages on this subject more eloquently than I could.



Good. I can buy that. Thanks.

It does appear that any Antichrist will be a religious figure and the spirit of Antichrist is not IRRELIGION or ATHEISM but FALSE RELIGION.


----------



## VilnaGaon

JennyG said:


> It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean...
> It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?



Yes it can. Al Gore and his gang are certainly pushing a new Environmental religion with its own set of Commandments with Rewards and Punishments. Planet Earth is the substitute for the Lord Jesus in this case. This new age environmental movement is even entering the Church. I heard a sermon from a ""Conservative"" Evangelical minister some time back in which he talked of the sin of Environmental pollution and likening it to Biblical sin. Needless to say there was no Gospel in that sermon.


----------



## Peairtach

JennyG said:


> It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean...
> It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?



But it isn't pretending to be Christian. 

Secular humanistic democratic societies, hardening into fundamentalist atheism/agnosticism with a persecutory edge, are a revival of the first beast of Revelation, which has never completely gone away and is represented by Nero and the Roman Empire, and has been fulfilled down through church history in paganism and statist persecution. Manifestations of this have been, the French Revolution, Communism, Islam, all sorts of false religion that doesn't pretend Christianity, Fascism/Nazism.

The politically correct fundamentalist secular humanistic "democratic" West, is the third ugly sister along with Fascism/Nazism and Communism in a trio of twentieth century humanistic experiments. Nationalistic humanism and Marxist humanism, destroyed themselves, or had to be destroyed quicker, only because they were more self-consciously and viciously humanistic to start out with.

The West is going down hill slowly but surely, yet accelerating since WW II, and particularly in recent years. One day Christianity will be in the ascendency in the West again.


----------



## VilnaGaon

Richard Tallach said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean...
> It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't pretending to be Christian.
> 
> Secular humanistic democratic societies, hardening into fundamentalist atheism/agnosticism with a persecutory edge, are a revival of the first beast of Revelation, which has never completely gone away and is represented by Nero and the Roman Empire, and has been fulfilled down through church history in paganism and statist persecution. Manifestations of this have been, the French Revolution, Communism, Islam, all sorts of false religion that doesn't pretend Christianity, Fascism/Nazism.
> 
> The politically correct fundamentalist secular humanistic "democratic" West, is the third ugly sister along with Fascism/Nazism and Communism in a trio of twentieth century humanistic experiments. Nationalistic humanism and Marxist humanism, destroyed themselves, or had to be destroyed quicker, only because they were more self-consciously and viciously humanistic to start out with.
> 
> The West is going down hill slowly but surely, yet accelerating since WW II, and particularly in recent years. One day Christianity will be in the ascendency in the West again.
Click to expand...


Nazism certainly used Christian Terminology in their ideology like the 1000 Year Reich as the Messianic Kingdom, the Fuhrer Hitler as the Messiah, the Aryans as the Elect and the ""Jewish"" Bolsheviks as the Devil. The Nazis even created their own Nazi Church(The German Christian Movement) in opposition to Confessional Lutheranism which they persecuted.
Similiarly the Soviets after the Revolution, created the Living Church which was actually run by the Soviet Secret Police. The concept of the worker's Paradise replace Heaven. Lenin was the Messiah. The Working Class was the Elect and the Bourgeosie was the Devil. The Laws of Historical Materialism Predestinated that the Working Class would inherit the earth. The Soviets also incorporated Orthodox Religious symbols with Leninism. School classrooms which previously kept Religious Icons in a corner now had a Lenin Corner. Lenin was embalmed(against his dying wishes) and a Mausoleum was constructed containing his body and the previously Orthodox Faithful who used to visit the graves of their saints now visited Lenin's Tomb. 
None of this is surprising considering that Hitler was a Catholic: His book Mein Kampf was written by the Catholic priest Father Stamplfe(Henry Ford and the Jews by Lee). Karl Marx was a Jew who converted to Catholicism and Stalin trained for the Orthodox Priesthood. 
Nazism and communism definitely did try to subsitute themselves for Christianity.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 07:27:53 EST-----

The Soviet Poet Alexander Blok wrote the poem ""the Twelve"" in which he depicts Christ marching with 12 Red Guards(Type of the 12 Apostles) murdering their way through Petrograd. This very well captures the Messianic Pretensions of Communism.


----------



## louis_jp

Pergamum said:


> In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?



The argument is sometimes made that the Marian doctrines have the effect of essentially denying that Christ has come in the flesh. 

First, because Catholics claim that Mary was unstained by sin, some say they are denying that Christ came from true, sinful humanity. Second, catholics assert Mary's perpetual virginity, going so far as to claim that Christ's birth did not even disrupt the birth canal, and that it brought no pain in childbearing, etc., (although I'm not sure how they explain all that.); but because of this it is also argued that it denies, in some sense, Christ's natural humanity.

I'm not saying I agree with this line of argument, but it is sometimes made.


----------



## dudley

louis_jp said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is sometimes made that the Marian doctrines have the effect of essentially denying that Christ has come in the flesh.
> 
> First, because Catholics claim that Mary was unstained by sin, some say they are denying that Christ came from true, sinful humanity. Second, catholics assert Mary's perpetual virginity, going so far as to claim that Christ's birth did not even disrupt the birth canal, and that it brought no pain in childbearing, etc., (although I'm not sure how they explain all that.); but because of this it is also argued that it denies, in some sense, Christ's natural humanity.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with this line of argument, but it is sometimes made.
Click to expand...


I do not believe that the pope has ever denied the fact that Christ has come in the flesh but I believe roman catholic papist teachings on Mary distort the truth of his coming in the flesh to save all who believe and are Born again in Him, Jesus Christ. I also as a Protestant believe the papacy if not the pope is the antichrist of all antichrists. I am a Presbyterian and a reformed Protestant. As a Protestant the Roman catholic teaching and doctrines on the Blessed Virgin Mary and the veneration of Mary is something that I reject in all respects. 

As a Protestant I believe she should be honored honored as her role in the incarnation is unique and wonderful, but she was a sinner in need of her son as much as we are. I did not always think this way, however.

I was a Roman Catholic all my life and at one time accepted the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, the immaculate conception, and the assumption. I now totally reject those teachings and have renounced Roman Catholicism and her pope. I left the Roman catholic church in January 2006 initially at first because I was no longer in line with the current pope. I had become very anti papist gradually and while still a Roman Catholic however in recent years I came to also believe that this current pope Benedict was leading the Roman Catholic church back to pre Vatican II thinking and positions. I also think God has led me to become a Protestant and a Protestant who is in line with the Reformed Protestant theology. 

I initially became an Episcopalian in 2006 because I was comfortable with the similarities to the Roman church. However I studied the Protestant reformation and I came to believe that the Reformed Protestants are the restoration of the church to its uncorrupted foundations. 

I am in faith now a Reformed Protestant theologically and a communing and confessed Presbyterian.

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## dudley

*The roman papacy is an untrue form of church government*

I have said as an ex rc that I renounced the papacy as well as roman catholicism. In renouncing the papacy I also renounced the roman church magesterium that I at one time believed to be the true church and the correct church form of government. 

I have also said in many of my papers that I became a Presbyterian because i believed that calvin returned the church to iuts original uncorupted form and Gospel intended by Christ. I also discovered that the Presbyterian form of church government was the original true church founded by Christ. Rome and her popes had corrupted her and Calvin I also discovered returned the church to its original form in every way including church government. Presbyterian.

The following piece I read today is from an article by 

BY
W.J. MCKNIGHT, D.D.
He said and I agree completely......

"Of the New Testament church, however, it will be necessary now to say a few things of a more particular kind. The Roman Catholics, you know, claim that their Church was the original church. The claim is not true. The Episcopal form of church government preceded the Roman Catholic form, and the Presbyterian form preceded them both. 

Paul THE PRESBYTERIAN
Paul, as every Bible reader is aware, directed Titus to "ordain elders in every city" in Crete (Titus 1:5), as he himself had been in the habit of doing "in every church" on his missionary tours (Acts 14: 23). Notice that word "elders", if you will, for in it the whole subject comes to a focus. The Greek word which lies behind it, if we turn it into English letters and Anglicize it, is presbyter, from which, of course, we have the noun and adjective Presbyterian. The elders or presbyters were the teaching and ruling officers of the New Testament church as it came from the hands of Christ and the Apostles. The teaching elders were also called "ministers" (1 Cor. 3:5; 4:1), and "preachers" (1 Tim. 2:7). Ordinarily, therefore, for brevity’s sake, we drop the words "teaching" and "ruling", and designate these two classes of presbyters more simply as "ministers and elders". But since they were all of them "elders" or "presbyters", the whole Apostolic Church was Presbyterian, and nothing else than Presbyterian, in its original organization. Its government was a government by presbyters." 

the above is taken from an article "CONCERNING CLOSE COMMUNION."

AN INVESTIGATION.

BY
W.J. MCKNIGHT, D.D.

In grace,
Dudley


----------

