WCF and the Antichrist

[Jerusalem Blade]

WCF 25.6 : that Antichrist, that man of sin — or an Antichrist, a man of sin?

I have been of the mind that the American revision of the original WCF at 25.6 was correct, and the revision of the 1647 was needed, thinking that Rome was too much on our minds in these days of its diminished power.

But now I am thinking that the original was correct.

Pondering — and praying — as regards what sort of person it could be that “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4KJV), understanding that the “temple of God” in the NT age is the church.

And I listen to the current woke pope — but discount him as he is too old and will not last much longer — yet his successor may be younger and could well be the one. It is clear that it must be someone who is recognized as “legitimate” in a world-wide professing church, and I know of no Protestants who could fit that bill.

Then I recently read Trinity Foundation’s article, “Antichrist’s Illegal Alien Assault on America”, By Steven T. Matthews, on the papal office’s strategy against national identities holding out against Rome’s agenda, and it appeared this is most feasible, and alarming — As the papacy is not at all diminished in its power!

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Afterthought]

I might read the paper and have thoughts on it later, but I did want to quickly post the following, which is helpful:

I think one of the keys is to recognize that the greatest enemy of the church is not persecution or world leaders per se, but a spiritual enemy: one who keeps people close to gospel light while in chains of darkness.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Rome was too much on our minds in these days of its diminished power.

There are still roughly 17.7% of the world's population who claim adherence to the Catholic Church. Now I know there's adherence and there's adherence, but what else is there like the Catholic Church on this Earth? Oh yeah, this is a big one: the religion of man as God is, I think, the largest religion extant. What do you think about that?

I'm not being a smart-aleck in any way. I'm really curious about the manifestations of other Christs today, if any, and your opinion.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[RamistThomist]

I've always thought that the Pope is a better candidate for the False Prophet than Antichrist. In terms of geopolitical and spiritual power, he exhibits none of the qualities of a future Antichrist. In terms of being a false prophet, he is the key example. I can see him leading a one world religion of Muslims and Hindus and Vatican 2 Catholics, but I don't see him leading the evil armies against Mt Zion per prophecy.

I'm not being a smart-aleck in any way. I'm really curious about the manifestations of other Christs today, if any, and your opinion.

All of the Hindu gods, for one. Islam, for another.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Ramón, I forget what Gavin Beers' view is (one of the down-sides of being 82 – my memory isn't so great anymore), would you please give a succinct idea of what it is?

Ed, it is particularly this paper I linked to above that gives an understanding of the papacy's strategy for destroying those nations that hold onto their identities and self-governance – and thus are in positions to oppose and thwart the papal vision of a world system under the sway of the pope and his views.

It is the destruction of American self-governance and national identity that the popes via papal decrees are accomplishing. The "sacred duty" of well-off nations is to harbor all refugees that come to them for asylum, they say, with a definite linkage to Marxist ideology. The paper is well written, and – in my view – makes its point.

Jacob, the respective identities of the beast and the false prophet are further fine-tuned in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. The man of sin is often linked with Antichrist – i.e., as Antichrist (as also in the 1647 Confession of Faith). It is the man of sin who sits in the temple of God (the professing world church) saying that, despite what his fathers taught (Daniel 11:36, 37, 38) it is he himself who ought to be worshipped.

He will not be a wimpy, mild character, but a man of great force – certainly not your normal pope! He will radically deviate from Roman Catholic teaching when it suits him. Many traditional Catholics will reject him, and suffer for it. Will he have some religious individual in the papal office who will exalt him and say he indeed must be worshipped? This would be the final "false prophet".

It was the above-linked paper that opened my eyes as to how the papal agenda could be accomplished. It is subtle, discrete, and powerful. Just look at the ruination of America through the millions of illegal aliens now on the dole, or just taking by violence whatever they want from those more well-off than they.

I hear from my friends in NYC (from whence I came) and media, that New York City is an awful place, with roving gangs having mass shoplifting sprees on famous stores, and Randall's Island – in the East River between Manhattan and Queens – is housing 3,000 young, single men in a massive tent city, and it has become a place of violence, dangerous even for the police. It costs millions monthly to run such a place (one of numerous places – many hotels in NYC now housing homeless aliens), and the city is not being reimbursed by the Feds.

Europe has likewise been ruined with much the same strategy. The U.K. somewhat. These are seismic events, world-wide.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

If you start with what our confession of faith says about the pope as being that man of sin, that antichrist, and then study it out from there, I think you'll see that he fits the bills entirely. The video posted above by Raymond isn't just a sermon or diatribe on the Pope but is carefully presented history and facts- you'll find it fascinating and engrossing as well as edifying and helpful, I believe.

 

[MW]

WCF 25.6 : that Antichrist, that man of sin — or an Antichrist, a man of sin?

I have been of the mind that the American revision of the original WCF at 25.6 was correct, and the revision of the 1647 was needed, thinking that Rome was too much on our minds in these days of its diminished power.

But now I am thinking that the original was correct.

Wylie's "Papacy" might be a good resource to consult at this point.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

I've always never understood the idea of the Pope being the Antichrist.
The Pope, since the early Reformation (even before 1517), has been called "the Antichrist." But I've always found this absurd because the Papacy is an office, not a person. It's like calling whoever's the President of the USA "the Antichrist." Sure, which President? Likewise, which Pope is the Antichrist?

I like the position of Thomas Cranmer: "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons."

Whoever holds the Papacy is an antichrist, but I do agree with Mr. Blade that the current Pope Francis is not the Antichrist. The dude has almost no energy to get out of his wheel-chair.

On the next Pope: The youngest Cardinal is Giorgio Marengo, who just recently celebrated his 50th birthday. I don't know how active he is or other contenders for the Papacy are, but it will definitely be interesting to see in the future.

 

[Andres]

I've always never understood the idea of the Pope being the Antichrist.
The Pope, since the early Reformation (even before 1517), has been called "the Antichrist." But I've always found this absurd because the Papacy is an office, not a person. It's like calling whoever's the President of the USA "the Antichrist." Sure, which President? Likewise, which Pope is the Antichrist?

It is the office and not a single man.

 

[MyCrows]

I've always never understood the idea of the Pope being the Antichrist.
The Pope, since the early Reformation (even before 1517), has been called "the Antichrist." But I've always found this absurd because the Papacy is an office, not a person. It's like calling whoever's the President of the USA "the Antichrist." Sure, which President? Likewise, which Pope is the Antichrist?

I like the position of Thomas Cranmer: "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons."

Whoever holds the Papacy is an antichrist, but I do agree with Mr. Blade that the current Pope Francis is not the Antichrist. The dude has almost no energy to get out of his wheel-chair.

On the next Pope: The youngest Cardinal is Giorgio Marengo, who just recently celebrated his 50th birthday. I don't know how active he is or other contenders for the Papacy are, but it will definitely be interesting to see in the future.

I think the idea is that the office of the papacy, by its own definition, and its de facto function, fulfils the criteria for being the antichrist. He usurps the offices of High Priest, Prophet, and King, which rightly belong to Jesus Christ.

The more precise understanding of the original language translated as "antichrist", is that the words refer to one who stands in place of Christ.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

I think the idea is that the office of the papacy, by its own definition, and its de facto function, fulfils the criteria for being the antichrist. He usurps the offices of High Priest, Prophet, and King, which rightly belong to Jesus Christ.

The more precise understanding of the original language translated as "antichrist", is that the words refer to one who stands in place of Christ.

I agree that the Pope, every Bishop of Rome that corrupted the gospel, is an antichrist. For example, indulgences from the Papacy are an abuse of John 20:23. St. John talks about his epistles (2 John 1:7). But just because someone takes the place of Jesus doesn’t make them the Antichrist.

Think of all the false Jewish Messiahs that have appeared throughout history. Think of the Islamic Jesus that is professed to appear. What about Joseph Smith? Muhammad? Jesus warns of this in Matthew 24:24. The Antichrist is simply one of many people who are antichrists and take Christ's role.

We identify the Antichrist as the Beast that appears in Revelation 13, the King in Daniel 8, and the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

This beast is a singular entity, like the false prophet and Satan himself (unless you interpret specific numbers of heads/horns/crowns as different figures).

The Antichrist will appear unchallengeable; thus receiving worship (Rev 13:4)
The Antichrist blasphemes God, ridicules Christians, and mocks Saints in heaven (Rev 13:6)
The Antichrist sees Himself as superior to every god and idol, and he resides in Churches (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4)
The Antichrist leads his forces to Israel and is defeated (Dan 11:40-45; Ezek 38-39; Joel 3:1-16; Zech 12:1-14:7)
The Antichrist was (and is) being restrained until the time of his rule comes (2 Thess 2:6)

Of course, almost none of this is applicable to the current Pope Francis. The current Pope is seen as weak, and even Catholics despise him. Currently, the RCC still subscribes to the Trinitarian God and, if anything, worships the Saints instead of mocking them. The Papacy doesn’t see itself as superior to God, but as a recipient of power from God via Apostolic Succession through St. Peter. The Vatican does not hold any power over other nations, and I would hardly consider the Swiss Guard as his sole force of Armageddon.

It is the office and not a single man.

John Wycliffe also wrote that “the Pope may obviously be the Antichrist, and yet not just that sole single individual… but rather the multitude of popes holding that position … along with the cardinals and bishops of the church.”

As I said, I’d agree that whoever holds the title of Pope in Rome is an antichrist, [Edit 1] but I wouldn't call the current Pope Francis the Antichrist (for reasons earlier mentioned). And I would disagree to call the office of the Pope the Antichrist. Why? The Beast is one singular being. A King that conquers and rules over all the nations. If a Pope resigns from his office, does that make him any less of the Antichrist? Not only this, who is the Prophet who performs signs and wonders and points them to the glory of the Pope (Rev 13:13-14)? And since the Pope is the Beast, what is the mark of the beast?

Now if one were to say that a future Pope will be the Antichrist, [Edit 2] I think it would seem more consistent. Of course, it wouldn’t be what I myself believe. My personal opinion is that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East, being either a Jewish Messiah or an Islamic Jesus.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I agree that the Pope, every Bishop of Rome that corrupted the gospel, is an antichrist. For example, indulgences from the Papacy are an abuse of John 20:23. St. John talks about his epistles (2 John 1:7). But just because someone takes the place of Jesus doesn’t make them the Antichrist.

Think of all the false Jewish Messiahs that have appeared throughout history. Think of the Islamic Jesus that is professed to appear. What about Joseph Smith? Muhammad? Jesus warns of this in Matthew 24:24. The Antichrist is simply one of many people who are antichrists and take Christ's role.

We identify the Antichrist as the Beast that appears in Revelation 13, the King in Daniel 8, and the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

This beast is a singular entity, like the false prophet and Satan himself (unless you interpret specific numbers of heads/horns/crowns as different figures).

The Antichrist will appear unchallengeable; thus receiving worship (Rev 13:4)
The Antichrist blasphemes God, ridicules Christians, and mocks Saints in heaven (Rev 13:6)
The Antichrist sees Himself as superior to every god and idol, and he resides in Churches (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4)
The Antichrist leads his forces to Israel and is defeated (Dan 11:40-45; Ezek 38-39; Joel 3:1-16; Zech 12:1-14:7)
The Antichrist was (and is) being restrained until the time of his rule comes (2 Thess 2:6)

Of course, almost none of this is applicable to the current Pope Francis. The current Pope is seen as weak, and even Catholics despise him. Currently, the RCC still subscribes to the Trinitarian God and, if anything, worships the Saints instead of mocking them. The Papacy doesn’t see itself as superior to God, but as a recipient of power from God via Apostolic Succession through St. Peter. The Vatican does not hold any power over other nations, and I would hardly consider the Swiss Guard as his sole force of Armageddon.

John Wycliffe also wrote that “the Pope may obviously be the Antichrist, and yet not just that sole single individual… but rather the multitude of popes holding that position … along with the cardinals and bishops of the church.”

As I said, I’d agree that whoever holds the title of Pope in Rome is an antichrist, but to call the current Pope Francis the Antichrist is just stupid and nonsensical. And to call the office of the Pope the Antichrist is even more such so. The Beast is one singular being. A King that conquers and rules over all the nations. If a Pope resigns from his office, does that make him any less of the Antichrist? Not only this, who is the Prophet who performs signs and wonders and points them to the glory of the Pope (Rev 13:13-14)? And since the Pope is the Beast, what is the mark of the beast?

Now if one were to say that a future Pope will be the Antichrist, that would be more logical and consistent. Of course, it wouldn’t be what I myself believe. My personal opinion is that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East, being either a Jewish Messiah or an Islamic Jesus.

You need to study up some more, young ‘un.

 

[MarrowMan]

I agree that the Pope, every Bishop of Rome that corrupted the gospel, is an antichrist. For example, indulgences from the Papacy are an abuse of John 20:23. St. John talks about his epistles (2 John 1:7). But just because someone takes the place of Jesus doesn’t make them the Antichrist.

Think of all the false Jewish Messiahs that have appeared throughout history. Think of the Islamic Jesus that is professed to appear. What about Joseph Smith? Muhammad? Jesus warns of this in Matthew 24:24. The Antichrist is simply one of many people who are antichrists and take Christ's role.

We identify the Antichrist as the Beast that appears in Revelation 13, the King in Daniel 8, and the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

This beast is a singular entity, like the false prophet and Satan himself (unless you interpret specific numbers of heads/horns/crowns as different figures).

The Antichrist will appear unchallengeable; thus receiving worship (Rev 13:4)
The Antichrist blasphemes God, ridicules Christians, and mocks Saints in heaven (Rev 13:6)
The Antichrist sees Himself as superior to every god and idol, and he resides in Churches (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4)
The Antichrist leads his forces to Israel and is defeated (Dan 11:40-45; Ezek 38-39; Joel 3:1-16; Zech 12:1-14:7)
The Antichrist was (and is) being restrained until the time of his rule comes (2 Thess 2:6)

Of course, almost none of this is applicable to the current Pope Francis. The current Pope is seen as weak, and even Catholics despise him. Currently, the RCC still subscribes to the Trinitarian God and, if anything, worships the Saints instead of mocking them. The Papacy doesn’t see itself as superior to God, but as a recipient of power from God via Apostolic Succession through St. Peter. The Vatican does not hold any power over other nations, and I would hardly consider the Swiss Guard as his sole force of Armageddon.

John Wycliffe also wrote that “the Pope may obviously be the Antichrist, and yet not just that sole single individual… but rather the multitude of popes holding that position … along with the cardinals and bishops of the church.”

As I said, I’d agree that whoever holds the title of Pope in Rome is an antichrist, but to call the current Pope Francis the Antichrist is just stupid and nonsensical. And to call the office of the Pope the Antichrist is even more such so. The Beast is one singular being. A King that conquers and rules over all the nations. If a Pope resigns from his office, does that make him any less of the Antichrist? Not only this, who is the Prophet who performs signs and wonders and points them to the glory of the Pope (Rev 13:13-14)? And since the Pope is the Beast, what is the mark of the beast?

Now if one were to say that a future Pope will be the Antichrist, that would be more logical and consistent. Of course, it wouldn’t be what I myself believe. My personal opinion is that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East, being either a Jewish Messiah or an Islamic Jesus.

Well, good to know you're smarter than quite a significant part of the greatest Reformed lights. Lol.

 

[MW]

But I've always found this absurd because the Papacy is an office, not a person. It's like calling whoever's the President of the USA "the Antichrist." Sure, which President? Likewise, which Pope is the Antichrist?

Heb. 9:7, "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people."

Which high priest did this? Each of them in succession. They are all identified as "the high priest."

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, good to know you're smarter than quite a significant part of the greatest Reformed lights. Lol.

Without speaking for him, it is possible to disagree with an aspect of what our fathers said without having the mentality that "we're smarter than them." I've probably read more of the Reformed scholastics than 90% of the people here, yet I disagree with them on this point. I've outlined some of my disagreements here.

Is this the papacy?

Revelation 17 Does this passage refer to the papacy? There is a whole lot in there that seems to fit, but if it is that, consistent exegesis would require a historicist framework for the rest of the book (Admins, feel free to change the link so it does the popup thing. I don't know how to do that)

puritanboard.com

Pope as Antichrist

Inspired by @W.C. Dean thread that has a side discussion regarding the Pope as Antichrist. For a long time I believed that the idea of the Pope being Antichrist held by many Reformers/Puritans/Covenanters was due to their own experiences in their own time. However, due to Scriptural evidence I...

puritanboard.com

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Heb. 9:7, "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people."

Which high priest did this? Each of them in succession. They are all identified as "the high priest."

Sure, and I agree. Every High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to atone for their and their people's sins on Yom Kippur. That's a fact.
Each of the High Priests were all to be holy (Lev 21:6-8). It was a holy office.

But that doesn't mean that each of them were holy. There were multiple High Priests and their Levite companions who were condemned by God (Ezek 22:26; Zeph 3:4; Mal 2:3-4).

The Papacy is simply the head of the Latin Church. Eventually, it grew to power the way it is, and I'll agree that every modern Pope is an antichrist. (I say "modern" due to lack of a better word, I don't know who was the last Pope that was actually Christian).

My contention is calling the office itself, the Antichrist. Because, from the passages I referenced earlier, the Papacy doesn't fulfill the prophecies made, and it seems that it is an individual, not an office, that is the Antichrist.

You need to study up some more, young ‘un.

Sure. I'll be thrilled to check out any resources you'd recommend. The Church needs less dogmatic Christians and more people who are eager to learn, which I try to do. In the meantime, I ask, respectfully, that you don't dismiss my arguments just because of my age, as it's implied. If you do disagree, then do explain to me why and what is a better interpretation of scripture.

Well, good to know you're smarter than quite a significant part of the greatest Reformed lights. Lol.

When did I say this? How is this concluded from my post? I fully respect the Reformation Fathers, as well as the Early Church Fathers, and other theologians. In no way do I consider myself "smarter" than the Reformers. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree and explain why.

"The Puritan Board is a forum dedicated to the discussion of Christian theology in a Confessionally Reformed context"

I'd absolutely love to hear your opinion on the issue, showing me how my interpretation is wrong, and how yours is better. That's the beauty of discussion and debate.

Without speaking for him, it is possible to disagree with an aspect of what our fathers said without having the mentality that "we're smarter than them." I've probably read more of the Reformed scholastics than 90% of the people here, yet I disagree with them on this point. I've outlined some of my disagreements here.

Is this the papacy?

Revelation 17 Does this passage refer to the papacy? There is a whole lot in there that seems to fit, but if it is that, consistent exegesis would require a historicist framework for the rest of the book (Admins, feel free to change the link so it does the popup thing. I don't know how to do that)

puritanboard.com

Pope as Antichrist

Inspired by @W.C. Dean thread that has a side discussion regarding the Pope as Antichrist. For a long time I believed that the idea of the Pope being Antichrist held by many Reformers/Puritans/Covenanters was due to their own experiences in their own time. However, due to Scriptural evidence I...

puritanboard.com

Thank you for the discussions. I'll be sure to view them.

 

[MarrowMan]

Sure, and I agree. Every High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to atone for their and their people's sins on Yom Kippur. That's a fact.
Each of the High Priests were all to be holy (Lev 21:6-8). It was a holy office.

But that doesn't mean that each of them were holy. There were multiple High Priests and their Levite companions who were condemned by God (Ezek 22:26; Zeph 3:4; Mal 2:3-4).

The Papacy is simply the head of the Latin Church. Eventually, it grew to power the way it is, and I'll agree that every modern Pope is an antichrist. (I say "modern" due to lack of a better word, I don't know who was the last Pope that was actually Christian).

My contention is calling the office itself, the Antichrist. Because, from the passages I referenced earlier, the Papacy doesn't fulfill the prophecies made, and it seems that it is an individual, not an office, that is the Antichrist.


Sure. I'll be thrilled to check out any resources you'd recommend. The Church needs less dogmatic Christians and more people who are eager to learn, which I try to do. In the meantime, I ask, respectfully, that you don't dismiss my arguments just because of my age, as it's implied. If you do disagree, then do explain to me why and what is a better interpretation of scripture.


When did I say this? How is this concluded from my post? I fully respect the Reformation Fathers, as well as the Early Church Fathers, and other theologians. In no way do I consider myself "smarter" than the Reformers. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree and explain why.

"The Puritan Board is a forum dedicated to the discussion of Christian theology in a Confessionally Reformed context"

I'd absolutely love to hear your opinion on the issue, showing me how my interpretation is wrong, and how yours is better. That's the beauty of discussion and debate.


Thank you for the discussions. I'll be sure to view them.

When you say that the view that the Pope or the office of the Pope as antichrist are stupid and nonsensical, you are literally indicting many of the greatest Reformed lights as stupid and nonsensical. Perhaps you ought to temper your words until you have digested and contemplated their arguments, yes?

Without speaking for him, it is possible to disagree with an aspect of what our fathers said without having the mentality that "we're smarter than them." I've probably read more of the Reformed scholastics than 90% of the people here, yet I disagree with them on this point. I've outlined some of my disagreements here.

Is this the papacy?

Revelation 17 Does this passage refer to the papacy? There is a whole lot in there that seems to fit, but if it is that, consistent exegesis would require a historicist framework for the rest of the book (Admins, feel free to change the link so it does the popup thing. I don't know how to do that)

puritanboard.com

https://puritanboard.com/threads/pope-as-antichrist.100984/#post-1230895[/URL

Pay attention to the actual bolded portion of the quote I posted.

ETA: I've deleted a portion of my reply to Jacob that was unnecessary.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

When you say that the view that the Pope or the office of the Pope as antichrist are stupid and nonsensical, you are literally indicting many of the greatest Reformed lights as stupid and nonsensical. Perhaps you ought to temper your words until you have digested and contemplated their arguments, yes?

Very well. I will edit my original sentence of "And to call the office of the Pope the Antichrist is even more such so" to something more respectful to the Fathers' views. I still obviously disagree with them, but looking back, I did not use the best words.

 

[MW]

The Papacy is simply the head of the Latin Church. Eventually,

There is no "eventually." Being the head of the church is THE problem. It is what puts him in the place of Christ -- the vicar of Christ -- or, in Greek, ANTI (in the place of) Christ.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I wonder if anyone actually read the paper I referenced (and linked to) in the OP! That's what this thread is all about: a point of view that has shaken me in my belief as regards the man of sin not necessarily being of the papal office. And the paper is about a spiritual (emanating from the papal office), political (profoundly affecting the governance of the U.S.), and social (enabling — facilitating — the massive migration of illegal aliens into the U.S., knowingly violating its laws), these three aspects — spiritual, political, social — empowering the papacy and drastically weakening (destroying?) the Republican government of the United States.

Not a soul has yet interacted with that paper!

But I have listened to Gavin Beers' entire one hour and three minute lecture / sermon on the Antichrist, despite my heavy workload and little spare time. At least I have been instructed.

Looking through Anthony Hoekema's classic (as a Reformed seminary textbook on eschatology), The Bible and the Future, I see he writes,

"The expression 'take his seat in the temple of God' should not be understood as implying that there will be once again a Jewish temple at the time of Christ's return, nor a suggesting that the man of lawlessness will make his appearance in the church, which is the New Testament counterpart of the Old Testament temple. The expression is probably best understood as an apocalyptic description of the usurpation of the honor and worship which is properly rendered only to God. Herman Ridderbos puts it this way, 'To sit in the temple is a divine attribute, the arrogating to oneself of divine honor.' " (p. 106)​

I don't know if I would concur with that, as "sitting in the temple of God" (2 Thess 2:4KJV) seems to me too precise a description to allow that. But I will keep it under consideration.

Cornelis P. Venema's The Promise of the Future, which replaced Hoekema's as the Reformed seminaries' eschatology textbook, has this to say,

Because this figure [Antichrist / man of lawlessness] arises within the orbit of the temple or church, many of the Reformers, including Calvin, identified the man of lawlessness or the Antichrist with the institution of the papacy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), for example, originally spoke of the pope as the Antichrist (XXV.6). This is not, however, the confessional position of the Reformed churches. Most Presbyterian denominations that subscribe to the Westminster standards have removed the reference to the pope as the Antichrist from these standards. [emphasis added -SMR] p. 168, fn 2​

Will be continued — have to run an errand.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Gavin Beers said in his talk that what (or who) "withholdeth" (restrains) the Antichrist early on was the Roman Empire (at around 21 minutes), but, as Hoekema points out (op cit pp. 160, 161) many of the Roman emperors themselves demanded to be worshipped!

Hoekema continues,

"We may even say that every age will provide its own particular form of antichristian activity. But we look for an intensification of this sign in the appearance of the antichrist shortly before Christ's return." (Ibid, p. 162) [emphasis his]​

Even though it looks like the papal office is quite effective through its "spiritual activities" in destroying holdout nations to its schema of world rule, it is quite possible for another system or coalition to arise and build upon the "globalization" Rome is effecting by its sacralizing mass population transfers that de-nationalize many once-sovereign states. Rome, although its professed congregants are many and wide-spread, has a terrible reputation throughout the world, especially for its scandals involving homosexual priests. Although in some quarters of this increasingly depraved woke world that might not be a negative.

Things materialize and arise very quickly these days of high-velocity change, and we could even see a new "Protestant" world council of churches arise, or, more likely, a generic spiritual path — with no relation to the true God at all — proclaiming the inherent sacred spirituality of all humankind amongst which a super avatar sort of person arises doing many lying wonders and false miracles to certify his "anointing" as the true god who must be worshipped by all. Or else. In the name of "mental and spiritual health" all opponents must be eliminated.

Satan may not want to be associated with the filth and blood of Rome, but instead create a temple of worshippers of his own making, a so-called "temple of the true god" (who, for a while, is able to hide his horns).

It will pay to wait and see what else besides Rome arises on apocalypse field, global arena of consciousness. However one looks at it, there will be battle. The word of the true God — the Holy Bible — will be our guide, and His Spirit will make it clear to Christ's people who the man of sin is.

 

[Sam Jer]

Gavin Beers said in his talk that what (or who) "withholdeth" (restrains) the Antichrist early on was the Roman Empire (at around 21 minutes), but, as Hoekema points out (op cit pp. 160, 161) many of the Roman emperors themselves demanded to be worshipped!

Hoekema continues,

"We may even say that every age will provide its own particular form of antichristian activity. But we look for an intensification of this sign in the appearance of the antichrist shortly before Christ's return." (Ibid, p. 162) [emphasis his]​

Even though it looks like the papal office is quite effective through its "spiritual activities" in destroying holdout nations to its schema of world rule, it is quite possible for another system or coalition to arise and build upon the "globalization" Rome is effecting by its sacralizing mass population transfers that de-nationalize many once-sovereign states. Rome, although its professed congregants are many and wide-spread, has a terrible reputation throughout the world, especially for its scandals involving homosexual priests. Although in some quarters of this increasingly depraved woke world that might not be a negative.

Things materialize and arise very quickly these days of high-velocity change, and we could even see a "Protestant" world counsel of churches arise, or, more likely, a generic spiritual path — with no relation to the true God at all — proclaiming the inherent sacred spirituality of all humankind amongst which a super avatar sort of person arises doing many lying wonders and false miracles to certify his "anointing" as the true god who must be worshipped by all. Or else. In the name of "mental and spiritual health" all opponents must be eliminated.

Satan may not want to be associated with the filth and blood of Rome, but instead create a temple of worshippers of his own making, the temple of the true god (who, for a while, is able to hide his horns).

It will pay to wait and see what else besides Rome arises on apocalypse field, global arena of consciousness. However one looks at it, there will be battle. The word of the true God — the Holy Bible — will be our guide, and His Spirit will make it clear to Christ's people who the man of sin is.

But the Roman emperors did not set themselves up as gods within the church of Jesus Christ, correct? After all Paul says the man of sin set's himself up within the temple of God.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Efraim,

Did you listen to Beers' lecture? If the emperors wanted worship of themselves they would be allies of the antichrist, and not opponents, or restrainers. Did you read the article in the OP? I'm trying to be precise in my references and thoughts.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

One thing to consider is that an entity such as the Roman Empire may have been providentially used to restrain the appearance of the man of sin within the professing church without necessarily being a good thing itself.

 

[Afterthought]

Any thoughts on this?

I think it shows the many ways that Rome subtely influences world affairs, even as Rome influences the church also. Rome's goal is submission to the Pope, and Rome is well known in history for making use of the issues of the day (i.e., shifting to take on a friendly face to a particular party) to secure that submission. I don't know for sure how intentional the immigration issue is to bringing America to submission, but at the very least, by defending such a cause, Rome can work to secure the submission of secular liberals (they will see him as being merciful and loving) while denigrating Protestants in the public's mind who are opposed to open borders.

It is certainly concerning that there are many in high office in America who belong to Rome. In theory, the Pope could issue a command to them that they would have to follow in the discharge of their offices. Probably isn't going to happen, since most of these guys are clearly not devout. Nevertheless, it is concerning and a national security risk, in my opinion.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I would be glad to talk about "harlot Babylon" and aspects of her, such as Rev 17:18KJV, "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth", or Rev 17:6KJV, "I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus".

These are very interesting apocalyptic symbols, living images signifying spiritual realities, even as Daniel in the OT spoke of these sorts of things (in Daniel 2) to king Nebuchadnezzar with the symbol of the figure of gold, silver, bronze, and metal, and metal mixed with clay signifying four different empires.

Of interest to me — both over the past 18 years here at PB and at present — are, what would the symbolic imagery in Revelation, and that which it appears to signify, look like in manifested reality? I have grown in my views by tossing these things out there for discussion among my intelligent peers. For example, such as the destruction of Babylon in Rev 17 and 18 — how could that be accomplished without destroying the entire world?

This is not a game to me, or an idle, merely intellectual pursuit, but a gathering "in the gate" of spiritual Jerusalem, among other elders and scholars — young and old — to grapple with the word of God and its meaning, both at its writing and at present.

But please, don't just throw books at me — which I am supposed to read (with my limited time and resources) — rather, what do you think, as the fruit of your own reasoning and searching? The Spirit of Christ, and His wisdom, dwells in His house, and His people.

 

[MW]

Steve, Sorry for throwing a book at you. I will try to give some thoughtful interaction to your question on Monday when I have a little time.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Hi Steve. Given the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, I don't think its possible for the Pope to be the "antichrist" as asserted by the WCF and LBC.
As such, I take an exception to LBC 26:4 (I'm Baptist) and the analogous WCF reference.

As a result of Christ’s resurrection, the Holy Spirit is now in the process of growing the new temple with the living stones of God’s people. This burgeoning new temple is simultaneously defined as Christ Himself (Mark 14:58), believers individually (1 Corinthians 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Corinthians 6:16). This temple-building process will culminate in the eternal state with resurrected believers dwelling in the paradisiacal city-temple of the completed new heavens and new earth.

It is no longer possible for a non-elect, godless unbeliever to take a seat in the temple of God. The new temple is Christ Himself and by definition could never contain an unbeliever. It is the invisible church. The possibility of an unbeliever taking their seat in the old temple of God ended in AD 70.

The Pope cannot be the "antichrist" because it is not possible for him to take a seat in the temple of God. How grotesque is it to think that an "antichrist" could actually assemble himself into Christ's body - the invisible church.

Furthermore, the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is 70 AD. Think about how odd 2 Thessalonians 2:2 would be if you try to apply it to the eschaton: "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"
Did the Thessalonians actually think second coming and the "end of the world" had already come and they missed it? No! The "day of the Lord" here refers to the temple destruction in Jerusalem as was predicted by Jesus to happen sometime in their generation. As such, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 cannot refer to a future Pope/Antichrist figure.

 

[Calvin Codger]

on the papal office’s strategy against national identities holding out against Rome’s agenda, and it appeared this is most feasible, and alarming — As the papacy is not at all diminished in its power!

Any thoughts on this?

I can get behind the sentiment of the WCF and LBC of calling out the papacy as evil. However, I'm disappointed that they hitched that sentiment to
2 Thessalonians 2. Judaism was the woman that rode the beast of the Roman Empire in the first century. Today, the papacy is one of the women riding the beast of human kingdoms that are in opposition to God.

 

[Northern Crofter]

WCF 25.6 : that Antichrist, that man of sin — or an Antichrist, a man of sin?

I have been of the mind that the American revision of the original WCF at 25.6 was correct, and the revision of the 1647 was needed, thinking that Rome was too much on our minds in these days of its diminished power.

But now I am thinking that the original was correct.

Pondering — and praying — as regards what sort of person it could be that “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4KJV), understanding that the “temple of God” in the NT age is the church.

And I listen to the current woke pope — but discount him as he is too old and will not last much longer — yet his successor may be younger and could well be the one. It is clear that it must be someone who is recognized as “legitimate” in a world-wide professing church, and I know of no Protestants who could fit that bill.

Then I recently read Trinity Foundation’s article, “Antichrist’s Illegal Alien Assault on America”, By Steven T. Matthews, on the papal office’s strategy against national identities holding out against Rome’s agenda, and it appeared this is most feasible, and alarming — As the papacy is not at all diminished in its power!

Any thoughts on this?

I am encouraged to see a man of your wisdom and years willing to reconsider a position - you are to be commended and I appreciate having a Godly example of humility and grace (even if you don't end up changing your mind!).

the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is 70 AD

...the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him, (v.1)

...that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (v.3)

...an adversary, and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doth sit as God in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (v.4)

...he might be revealed in his time. (v.6)

...till he be taken out of the way. (v.7)

And then shall that wicked man be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall abolish with the brightness of his coming, (v.8)

Even him whose coming is by the effectual working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, (v.9)

And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies, (v.11)

So you believe these things have already occurred in 70? If so, what man in 70 entirely fit this description above? Surely he would be obvious in recorded history. And do you also believe these things above happened in 70?

The previous chapter in II Thessalonians seems to be clearly talking about the final judgment, not 70: "So that we ourselves rejoice of you in the Churches of God, because of your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye suffer. Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for the which ye also suffer. For it is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, And to you which are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall show himself from heaven with his mighty Angels, In flaming fire, rendering vengeance unto them, that do not know God, and which obey not unto the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which shall be punished with everlasting perdition from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (vv.4-9) Paul is writing to encourage a Church that is currently suffering at the hands of oppressors by reminding them that one day deliverance and judgment, respectively, will come. Wouldn't it be odd that Paul suddenly switches to talking about 70 in the next chapter? Wouldn't "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him" in 2.1 make more sense as a continuation of 1.4-9, especially if it is read as written (one long letter, not broken up into chapters/verses)?