# The man of sin



## Herald (Sep 13, 2009)

> *1689 LBC 26:4*
> 
> ...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.





> *WCF 25:6*
> 
> 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.
> I am aware of three views regarding this part of both confessions:


1. The papacy is *the *anti-Christ of 2 Thessalonians 2.
2. The papacy is a type of the anti-Christ, since the anti-Christ is not a specific individual. Therefore, any system that sets itself up as opposed to Christ can be considered to be anti-Christ.
3. These sub-chapters were written as a refutation against the Roman counter-reformation and its persecution of the Protestant church. Because Rome stood as the one great threat against the gospel, both Baptists and Presbyterians reacted strongly against Rome.

I am interested in some dialog on this issue.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2009)

I currently hold to the hybrid view. The papacy is a type of antichrist; just as is Mormonism and Islam. Additionally, being on the heels of the counter-reformation, the papacy presented the largest external threat to the Protestant church. In that sense these sub-chapters were reacting in a contemporary manner.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2009)

Would any "others" be kind enough to explain their interpretation? It would prove most helpful.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 13, 2009)

I voted "other" because for me the jury is still out on that one, though I tend to go with a combination of #2 and ##. The papcy is a type of anti-Christ, and to the reformers it was a real threat. For most of my life, I have seen the RCC as a non-threat, because of the growth of the protestant church, and Vatican II. 

Lately, however, I've been rethinking my position for these reasons:

1) The RCC has made moves to reinstate positions it held prior to Vatican II such as purgatory, indulgences, and latin masses. 
2) The RCC has always claimed to be the true church and the pope its head.
3) Although the RCC is not a member of the World Council of Churches, because 
of it believes it is the true church, it works closely with the WCC to reunite the churches under one head. The quote below is from the WCC of website. 



> Is the Roman Catholic Church a member?
> No, although there is no constitutional reason why the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) could not join; in fact it has never applied. The RCC's self-understanding has been one reason why it has not joined. The WCC has close links with the RCC. A WCC/RCC joint working group meets annually. The WCC commissions on Faith and Order as well as on World Mission and Evangelism include Roman Catholics who are members with full voting rights. A Roman Catholic consultant works with WCC staff on mission issues and a Roman Catholic professor is part of the faculty at the Ecumenical Institute Bossey.



4) The RCC has a "Pontifical Council to Promote Unity". They have been attempting to dialogue with nearly every major group that calls itself Christian including the Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Penecostals, Reformed and Evangelical Churches. See this link. The Holy See - The Roman Curia - Pontifical Councils - Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

What I see is that the RCC and its head (the pope) have never really changed their positions but instead have been quietly working underground the last few decades to lure protestants back into their ranks. And in some ways, it may be more of a threat to true christianity and the Gospel than it was during Luther's and Calvin's day. At least Luther and Calvin knew what they were dealing with. Today, it's not so easy to tell.


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 13, 2009)

But why the term "_that_ man", why the term "_the_ son." It sounds very specific, no?


----------



## Bald_Brother (Sep 13, 2009)

*I chose #1....*

...but, I maybe could have chose "other." I believe the framers of the Confessions were correct. The pope is the antichrist and, I believe, every pope is the type of the coming Antichrist. The best way I can describe it is that I see the papacy similar to the way I understand justification.. that is "already/not yet" or "realized but not fully realized." The papacy is the realization of the Antichrist and already sets itself up in the place of God, but not completely.. not yet.

I mean, does not the Roman Church teach that salvation is found through that church alone, setting itself up in the place of Christ (maybe unintentionally - as I've never met a Catholic that would admit this, instead they argue that through the Church one finds Christ and correct teachings)? Does not the Roman Church preach another gospel and declare all anathema that preach the true Gospel of free justification by faith alone in Christ alone? Does not the true church remain under the "curse" from the papacy, the head of that Apostate church? 

I don't, however, believe that the papacy is a threat to the Church. No, I don't believe that any perceived threat is truly a threat, as God will keep his people. The threat is to all those who follow, outside of the true church, the Church of Rome believing erroneously that they are in the body of Christ. They will be deceived unto condemnation through the office of the Pope.

As an aside, I don't think that Islam or Mormonism or Jehovah Witness(ism?) is the antichrist. Instead I believe that they heretic teachers of false god's. Ba'alism is probably a better religion to compare them to. The Roman Church knows the truth and teaches enough truth (take the ecumenical creeds, for example) to be a great deceiver that draws many who have tasted the goodness of the Lord into all out apostasy, denying Christ's finished work by crucifying him weekly (if that were possible).


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 13, 2009)

I voted "The framers of both confessions were reacting against the threat of the papcy in the 17th century". Doesn't Scripture state that the anti-Christ is the one who denies that Christ is the Son of God? The RCC doesn't so I don't see how they could be the anti-Christ except maybe during their time of writing about them they felt the RCC was bc the RCC was persecuting the Body of Christ. But that would only be in action not in theology?


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2009)

For those who voted that the papacy is the antichrist, how does this passage, written before the RCC existed, impact the discussion?



> *1 John 2:18-22* 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.


----------



## Bald_Brother (Sep 13, 2009)

*Second London Baptist Confession*

It doesn't change my understanding. Like I said, revealed but not fully revealed. V.19 is actually what caused me to change my former understanding, which was to hold to the LBCF*. Now I hold to the LBCF without exception. 

From us (the catholic church) but no longer of us (the Roman Church). John describes apostates claiming a different way as antichrist. Papacy fits as far as I'm concerned.

*except 26.4b



Herald said:


> For those who voted that the papacy is the antichrist, how does this passage, written before the RCC existed, impact the discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> > *1 John 2:18-22* 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.


----------



## PresbyDane (Sep 13, 2009)

Hybrid


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2009)

The Papacy is the Antichrist, but there are other antichrists e.g. liberal theology. An antichrist has to look Christian and yet be an idol set up in Christ's place by the Devil to lead people astray and ultimately to Hell.

John the Apostle was dealing with the antichrist of Christian Gnosticism and not the Papacy.

Mormonism is an antichrist because it pretends Christianity. Islam isn't an antichrist because it doesn't pretend Christianity. Neither is Communism, Fascism, Secular Humanism, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Atheism, etc.

The other great enemy in Revelation apart from the Beast from the Earth (the False Prophet) who represents the Antichrist and antichrists, is the Beast from the Sea which represents Nero, the Roman Empire and state-sponsored persecution of Christians down through the centuries. This type of persecution can be backed-up by Islam, Communism, Fascism, Secular Humanism, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Atheism, etc.

Sometimes state-sponsored persecution is backed-up or could be backed-up by the Antichrist or other antichrists.

Babylon is the Church (woman) gone rotten because of false teaching by the False Prophet (the Antichrist/antichrists) and pressure of statist and pagan persecution.

See my posts on other recent threads dealing with this subject, if you're interested.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 13, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Mormonism is an antichrist because it pretends Christianity. Islam isn't an antichrist because it doesn't pretend Christianity. Neither is Communism, Fascism, Secular Humanism, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Atheism, etc.



Scripture states that whoever denies that Christ is the Son of God is the antichrist not whoever pretends to be of the Body of Christ *and* denies He is the Son of God is an antichrist. So I would have to agree with Bill that Islam along with the rest of your list including JW are an antichrist. I believe that THE Antichrist was Nero.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2009)

The antichrist that John was dealing with was Christian Gnosticism, and _that_ explicitly denied that Christ had come in the flesh.

For a better explanation of my reasoning here on this admittedly difficult subject, please see Patrick Fairbairn on "The Interpretation of Prophecy" (BoT)

Fairbairn on Prophecy, Part 2-3

Here's part of the relevant section:-



> 2. The Antichrist as represented by our Lord and his Apostles.
> 
> 1. Here, we naturally look first to the discourses of our Lord; but as these were chiefly intended to lay the foundations, as to doctrine and duty, of the Christian church, and unfold the calling and prospects of her real members, they contain comparatively little that bears on our present subject. Not unfrequently they point, though in a quite general way, to the difficulties and dangers through which his genuine followers should have to pass, the violence and oppression they should have to meet, and the corruptions and counterfeits that should rise up in the midst of them and continue till the time of the end. Such, in particular, are the parables of the tares and the wheat, the labourers in the vineyard, and the importunate widow. Almost the only information of a more specific kind contained in our Lord's discourses regarding the usurpation of the world upon the church, is to be found in what he says of the false pretenders to divine light and power, and the dangerous ascendency they were to acquire. A warning on this head had been thrown out in the Sermon on the Mount: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps' clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. vii. 15). But it is repeated, and more pointedly pressed in the discourse respecting the last times in Matt, xxiv.; first at ver. 11, "and many false prophets shall arise, and deceive many;" and again at ver. 24, "There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." From the connection in which the words are spoken, there can be no doubt, that they taught the disciples to look for the appearance of such characters among the signs of the approaching downfall of the old Jewish constitution; and from the relation which this bore to the time of the end, in the more extended sense, we are warranted to expect, that the sign would repeat itself in the latter stages of the world's history. Both points, however, are so much more fully brought out by the apostles of our Lord in their addresses and epistles, that we pass at once to what proceeded from them upon the subject.
> 
> ...


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 13, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> The antichrist that John was dealing with was Christian Gnosticism, and _that_ explicitly denied that Christ had come in the flesh.



It is my understanding that those who were spreading false doctrine had already left the church and formed their own "group" and were purporting that Christ was not the Son of God. They were not trying to stay in the church too and do this.


----------



## HokieAirman (Sep 13, 2009)

1st, nowhere in the Bible can I find "THE Anticrist"...as some say 2 Thessalonians 2 says.

I believe the words are simply 'antichrist', indicating that there is not one single Antichrist, but many who bear that spirit. 

I voted the hybrid as well.)


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 13, 2009)

HokieAirman said:


> 1st, nowhere in the Bible can I find "THE Anticrist"...as some say 2 Thessalonians 2 says.
> 
> I believe the words are simply 'antichrist', indicating that there is not one single Antichrist, but many who bear that spirit.
> 
> I voted the hybrid as well.)



Many reformed thinkers feel the Man of Sin is THE Antichrist...as I do.

-----Added 9/13/2009 at 05:28:13 EST-----

BTW, EVERYONE WITH A KINDLE!!!!! Kim Riddlebarger's book _Man of Sin: Uncovering The Truth About the Antichrist _is available for the Kindle!!! I'm way too excited!!! [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Man-Sin-Uncovering-Truth-Antichrist/dp/B001GCUBTQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252877059&sr=8-2"]Here[/ame] is a link for more info


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2009)

I've benefitted greatly from Bahnsen's tape series on Revelation. I think he agreed with Gentry that Nero was the Antichrist.

I would differ, in that I see the First Beast from the Sea, as Nero (666) and the Roman Empire, and also ongoing statist persecution until Christ defeats His and the Church's enemies in chapter 19, which I view as yet future to us. I take more of a historical preterist rather than preterist view.

But I believe the Second Beast (the False Prophet) to symbolise antichristian compromise in all its forms, within or outwith the visible Church. This compromise often co-operates with statist persecutors as the Roman church did.

When it talks about the False Prophet denying buying and selling in Revelation 13:17, that of course is a reference to the "buying and selling" of the Gospel (Rev. 3:18), which cannot be freely carried out without compromise under the baneful influence of the Statist and Ecclesiatical Beasts viz. e.g. the State Churches in China. 

We of course must take our views on these difficult areas of Scripture, even quite studied views, with a large pinch of salt 

I'm sure - whether we know who the Antichrist/antichrists are we can still recognise heresy when we see it, and certainly feel persecution when we undergo it.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> The Papacy is the Antichrist, but there are other antichrists e.g. liberal theology.



Interesting. Do you think the framers intended to label the papacy as the antichrist while not denying there are other antichrists? If that is so, how is that different than a type of antichrist?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2009)

Well the Bible teaches that their are different antichrists, and also that the Antichrist was coming.

See the excellent Mr Fairbairn for why I believe the Antichrist is also the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition i.e. the Papacy.

The Papacy is different in that 

(a) It is the Big Daddy of all antichrists.

(b) It has the greatest and most notable of Christian pretensions.

(c) It sits flagrantly in the middle of the visible church, claiming - almost openly, and sometimes openly - the offices and functions and glories of Christ. But in such a way that many, even Reformed people, don't recognise it.

(d) It has been around for so long and has led millions astray and is still doing that today; it persecuted the saints with the help of a complicit state (the church itself wasn't allowed to condemn and execute) and would still do that today if it thought it was in its interests.

Rivals for Antichrist like Nero, were only around for a short time and deceived no-one for eternity. In Revelation, Nero becomes a symbol/type of statist and pagan persecution, for all time.

See the excellent Mr Fairbairn on why the Papacy is the masterpiece of Satan (but not the only one).

Believing these things doesn't mean that you need to think that Rome is the main problem in the area of the world or place in history you have.

It doesn't mean you have to see Jesuits under the bed or Popish conspiracies everywhere.

It doesn't mean you have to evangelise your RC friends by telling them that the Papacy is the Antichrist.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> It doesn't mean you have to evangelise your RC friends by telling them that the Papacy is the Antichrist.



I actually taught on this chapter and paragraph of the 1689 LBC this morning. One of the last things I told our parishioners was that it would not be a good idea to go to their RC friends and family and tell them that the papacy is the antichrist. It's not a preferred method of evangelism.


----------



## Rich Koster (Sep 13, 2009)

Herald said:


> > *1689 LBC 26:4*
> >
> > ...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.
> 
> ...



I believe the spirit of anti Christ rules the papacy. How dare a man declare, and others back him, that salvation is found only in their religious system. Jesus said "I AM the way, the truth, the life". What part of "no one comes to the Father but by Me" can't the pope (or other pluralists) grasp? The pope effectively sets himself up in place of Jesus with his title (as head) and the claims of RCC exclusivity set them against, or should I say in replacement of Jesus as the source of salvation.
I agree that the papacy is shown as anti-Christ by the whole of scripture. 2 Thes. 2 is only a part of the picture, so I couldn't vote for that option.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2009)

Just thought I would stick this little blurb here. 



armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Concerning the part about *the *Pope being *the* Anti-Christ. I have some questions here. Which Pope? And what about other Anti-christs. Isn't Islam Anti-Christ also? I do believe they are anti-Christs but to single one out is a bit presumptuous.
> ...


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 13, 2009)

Glenn linked to this on another thread. It might be helpful in understanding this topic.

The classical reformed view of this passage (sermon audio 30+ minutes)

SermonAudio.com - Loughbrickland Reformed Presbyterian


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 14, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Just thought I would stick this little blurb here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed!

AMR


----------



## discipulo (Sep 14, 2009)

I voted that the Papacy is a type of the Antichrist but I wouldn’t be surprised if the final Antichrist will be a Pope, actually I do believe it will be certainly endorsed by the Roman Church.

In the context of Nero’s persecutions, Babylon is recalled,

What is retained in the Roman Church from, not only the Emperor’s Cult of Rome, but not least from the Babylon Cult is incredible.

*Alexander Hislop - The Two Babylons*, subtitled, 
*the Papal Worship proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife*,

it is so clear in exposing all the rituals, ceremonies, names and titles, doctrines, of the Roman Church that go all the way back to the Babylonian Cult.

So I can’t imagine a more appropriate place than the Vatican Religion to match the

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.


----------

