American Vision Article and Comments on the WCF

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
I read this article by Gary DeMar this morning. I am wondering what others think about his comments concerning the WCF and the identification of "The Antichrist."

Like so many of today’s prophetic claims of “certainty” of who the antichrist is, the Bible in the sixteenth century was being read and interpreted through the lens of current events. When a political leader exerts his authority, there are prophecy writers today who are quick to identify him as the antichrist or the prelude to the antichrist. The Reformation grew out of doctrinal controversies and unbiblical practices of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s not surprising that those who had been persecuted for questioning the church in these areas to find justification for their judgments against Rome in the pages of Scripture. The belief that the Roman Catholic Church was the antichrist was so strong and certain that it was written into their confessional statements. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) included the following in Chapter 25 section 6:

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.​

The antichrist designation was removed in 1789 in the American edition. The revised article reads, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” There remain groups today that still identify the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church as the antichrist, but most evangelicals no longer attribute the antichrist moniker to the papacy even though they still disagree with many of the church’s doctrinal claims and practices.
 
What are you wondering about it?

:oops: I did not state that correctly (have now edited it). I am curious about PB opinions about the identity of the Pope as Antichrist (as stated by DeMar) in this article and the confessional implications of such.

Overall, I think the article is good, as he comments on the current defeatist attitude of much of the church and how this is out of accord with the attitude of the Reformers (quoting from the notes of the Geneva Bible for support). I also like how he says that these days (even from the church) the Antichrist gets more press than Jesus Christ -- and that's a bad thing.
 
I don't think that the reformation era's identification of the Pope as antichrist is of the same order as today's tendency to interpret things "through the lens of current events." People back then simply understood the Roman church better than people generally do today. Today we look at the Pope as kind of an eccentric old grandpa, a little odd but harmless enough. In the 16th and 17th centuries they knew better.

If you really understand the claims of the papacy, you're not left with much choice -- either they are the one true church, or they are the (or an) antichrist. (I've heard Roman Catholics stating the same thing). Identifying them as such is part of identifying the real church, so personally, I think something is lost by taking that out of the confessions.
 
I believe DeMar is basically correct. The identification of the pope as "the Antichrist", etc was just the seventeenth century version of futurism.
 
I think Gary Demar, Ken Gentry and others are correct in pointing out how those reacting against the abuses by Rome would view the time they lived in and the Roman Church as a "good fit" into such verses.
I am still going over their material in several different books and DVd"s.
They seem to offer up much scriptural support for their positions.
It would be helpful to see or hear a debate with Demar/Gentry {POST}
with Engelsma/Hanko[amill]
 
Tim,
Reformed Baptists are currently having a vigorous debate among themselves regarding the pope as the antichrist (LBCF 1689 26:4). Some would amend this to "the pope is an antichrist.
 
Tim,
Reformed Baptists are currently having a vigorous debate among themselves regarding the pope as the antichrist (LBCF 1689 26:4). Some would amend this to "the pope is an antichrist.

Popes come and go. Ask them which one.
 
This was not changed in 1789, but is one of the 1903 changes by the northern church as it was sliding into liberalism.
I read this article by Gary DeMar this morning. I am wondering what others think about his comments concerning the WCF and the identification of "The Antichrist."

The antichrist designation was removed in 1789 in the American edition.
 
I don't consider who or who isn't the Antichrist to be a major point of doctrine, as long as we recognise and oppose heresy and persecution (pressure on the true Church) when we see them. It's also a diificult area of Scripture.

But I believe the writers of the Confession got it right. And it's still relevant, because the Papacy (the Antichrist) is a long-term antichrist. How long has it been around for?

Chameleon-like it has stopped burning those who stand up for the true Gospel but more importantly how many over the centuries have gone to Hell with a lie in their right hand because of the Papacy, and how many are going today?

On the other hand how many did Nero bring down to Hell with him? A tiny puckle compared with the Papacy.

I believe Gentry and de Mar are so enamoured with preterism that almost everything is squeezed into the first century.

They also confuse the First Beast (statist persecution) - which would be represented by Nero (666/616) and the Roman Empire for first century readers - with the Antichrist.

I believe ecclesiastical compromise/ heresy and compromise with the pagan state is symbolised by the Second Beast (the Antichrist/and other antichrists) also known as the False Prophet.

This leads the woman (the Church) to turn into a whore (compromised Church/churches, not just Rome but also e.g. liberal Protestant churches)

Gentry on the other hand makes the whore to be apostate Jerusalem, and Bahnsen makes it Pagan Rome. There's more than enough OT symbolism of whores representing apostasy to reject Bahnsen's idea. Gentry's idea may be related to a desire to squeeze everything up to Revelation 19 into the first century.

We have a perfectly good candidate for the Whore - which was held to by Fairbairn and others - the Woman (the Church) becomes the corrupt Whore, before finally being cleansed of her whoredoms by Christ and married by Him as the beautiful Bride.

Gentry's, de Mar's etc, approach to these things (the Olivet Discourse and Revelation including the Antichrist/ antichrists) is a lot more sensible than dispensationalism and also highly enlightening and instructive, but it is not complete.

Why would the Apostles make such a fuss over one short-reigned emperor?

:2cents:
 
Tim,
Reformed Baptists are currently having a vigorous debate among themselves regarding the pope as the antichrist (LBCF 1689 26:4). Some would amend this to "the pope is an antichrist.

Popes come and go. Ask them which one.

They mean the papacy, or the "office" of pope.

Then why wouldn't they state it that way? The papacy seems to be more inline with their intent, but saying "pope" implies they have some issue with some particular man (as they did back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries).
 
Reading the various books by proponents of the differing schools of prophecy, don't most of them boil down to "The "Antichrist" is anyone who does not agree with me"?
 
Popes come and go. Ask them which one.

They mean the papacy, or the "office" of pope.

Then why wouldn't they state it that way? The papacy seems to be more inline with their intent, but saying "pope" implies they have some issue with some particular man (as they did back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries).

The issue has always been the papacy. "Pope" is used collectively. That's the convention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top