Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't think he was shouting since he didn't write in all caps he just has a large font. Maybe he has a hard time seeing what he writes? Idk
No need to "shout"; we get the message.
My apologies if that is the case, Jeremy.
- Status
My apologies if that is the case, Jeremy.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Nor do I like contradicting you, Matthew; you, like myself, are as a bulldog with a bone – tenacious – in debate! Plus, you are more learned than I. I think your objection is well-placed in denying me the word "warrant", insofar as the American 1936 WCF is concerned, as warrant denotes authorization or sanction. I yield on that point. As you indicate, it but gives me liberty (allows me) the view I hold. However – and please let's not debate it here! – Scripture gives me warrant for my view.
I am really so glad to see you up and about again! Praise to our God! Do I read your signature correctly; you are pastoring again, but in a cooler climate – in Victoria? That must have been a Herculean feat, the move, especially with all your books.
I am really so glad to see you up and about again! Praise to our God! Do I read your signature correctly; you are pastoring again, but in a cooler climate – in Victoria? That must have been a Herculean feat, the move, especially with all your books.
Steve, I'm mostly just resting here; there is no pastoral charge; and there is already a pastor active in the broader area. But there does seem to be alot of interest in learning the reformed faith, so I'm not left wondering what to do. Yes, moving was quite a task, but I'm thankful everything went as smoothly as it did. The Lord is our help indeed! Thankyou and everyone else for being such an encouragement. Blessings!
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
αντί + Χριστός is translated anti+Christ
αντί carries the weight of "In the place of" as much as "over and against"
The Papacy is certainly qualified as antichrist. (in-the-place of & therefore over & against Christ)
The Pope takes the following titles to himself
1. "The Head of the Church" & "The visible representation of Christ on earth" <- Last time I checked these were titles exclusive of the true Christ.
2. "The Holy Father" & "The MOST Holy Father" <- God the Fathers Titles.
3. "Vicarius Filii Dei" or "Vicar of the Son of God" or the one who comes in the place of the Son of God. <- Is this not the explicit title of the Holy Spirit?
Does one NOT deny the Father & the Son when taking not only their names and positions and authority but the Holy Spirits as well?
Furthermore, the papacy rose up from am illegitimate throne within the visible church.
Although there be and have been many anti-christs... none are to the level of coming from within the visible church, then taking the explicit names of the Triune-Persons of the Godhead, making himself the Chief mediator claiming the ability of the absolution of sin (others only by his authority,) and making salvation apart from himself impossible.
I think the pope wears the badge of antichrist without a doubt.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
You have to admire Luther's willingness to say what was on his mind no matter who might be offended. I imagine that if Luther were alive today and active on the Puritan Board, he would keep the moderators pretty busy.
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'll go with the Papacy, unless something more wicked arises, within the Visible Church, that trumps it.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Pontifex Maximus = Greatest Bridgebuilder =High Priest
Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pontifex Maximus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Is there a difference between "the" Antichrist and "that" Antichrist? Why/why not? Is there even a biblical basis for talking about "the" Antichrist? (I notice John in 1 John 2 does not say "the" Antichrist, but merely says that they know antichrist is coming, and that even now there are antichrists in the world) Or is this question merely one about how we define terms and/or capture the meaning of what Scripture teaches with extra-biblical language?
Edit: Also, how can the Pope be a "type" of the Antichrist? Isn't one of the qualifications for a type is that it be divinely appointed to represent an antitype? But then how can the Pope be divinely appointed as a type of the Antichrist and the man of sin when the Pope is never mentioned in Scripture?
Edit2: Also, if one took an idealist view of Revelation (or some other view too, perhaps), is there really such a thing in the Bible as an eschatalogical Antichrist or man of sin--that is, an Antichrist or man of sin looming in the future near the end of time? Or perhaps I (or another) should start a different thread on that?
Edit: Also, how can the Pope be a "type" of the Antichrist? Isn't one of the qualifications for a type is that it be divinely appointed to represent an antitype? But then how can the Pope be divinely appointed as a type of the Antichrist and the man of sin when the Pope is never mentioned in Scripture?
Edit2: Also, if one took an idealist view of Revelation (or some other view too, perhaps), is there really such a thing in the Bible as an eschatalogical Antichrist or man of sin--that is, an Antichrist or man of sin looming in the future near the end of time? Or perhaps I (or another) should start a different thread on that?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
The use of the term that Antichrist in the Confession contrasts the particular Antichrist who was foretold to come with the many antichrists who are always in the world. I think it is clear that both of these ideas are present in John's epistles--a "big Antichrist" and little antichrists.
However, in my opinion, the more important passage in this discussion is 2 Thessalonians 2:
Now, to show that this man is indeed Antichrist, notice: v4- "he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" - As has been noted "antichrist" doesn't just mean "against Christ," but also "in the place of Christ." The "Man of Sin" and "Son of Perdition" foretold here is clearly antichrist. Not only is he an antichrist, but he serves a role in history that is unequaled by any other antichrist--being linked to a great "falling away" within the Church (v3).
Bear in mind, also, that these things are foretold by Apostles as having special import for the Church--showing that this Antichrist, and the falling away that he will lead the Church into, is far more significant than the cults of the little antichrists of the Apostle's day.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you for the help! Indeed, I agree that the 2 Thess. passage is more important, and in my mind, more clear. Thank you for connecting "Antichrist" with the "man of sin", for that is an identification I've often wondered about. It seems obvious, but I've wondered why it seemed obvious.
The thing that was throwing me off on the 1 John passage was that it does not say "the" antichrist. It merely says "antichrist" shall come; it's like a name of a person, in that it lacks the definite article. Perhaps I'm making things too difficult though. John says that you know antichrist shall come--there is a something or someone called "antichrist" who shall come--, and that you know even now many antichrists have come--there are many antichrists, and they have already come, but "antichrist" has not come yet. Hence it appears there's a difference between "antichrist" who shall come, and the "many antichrists" who have already come. As for whether "antichrist" is a big one while the "many antichrists" are little, I'm not sure can be determined from the passage. It appears that in order to make that further distinction, one would need to identify the "man of sin" with "antichrist who shall come." Once that is done, we then apply the term "the Antichrist" to that identification, and so get the distinction between "big" and "little".
(I also note that John does not identify when "antichrist" will come, but only that "antichrist" had not come yet at the time of writing; interesting. But I also note that I'm not entirely sure of my above understanding on the passage; it seems John is saying, in the same spirit as in 1 John 4 except without a plural number having already come, that "you heard that antichrist shall come; antichrist has come, many antichrists are around now", with "antichrist" perhaps being understood not individually but rather as comprising the many antichrists who have come)
However, I'm not sure whether the words of the confession are singling out "the Antichrist", but rather, they seem to merely state that the Pope is the particular antichrist that is the man of sin. Though I guess historically, the "man of sin" antichrist would be "the Antichrist" (as it appears from one of the other confessions you quoted, and perhaps also from the capitalization of "Antichrist" in the WCF).
The thing that was throwing me off on the 1 John passage was that it does not say "the" antichrist. It merely says "antichrist" shall come; it's like a name of a person, in that it lacks the definite article. Perhaps I'm making things too difficult though. John says that you know antichrist shall come--there is a something or someone called "antichrist" who shall come--, and that you know even now many antichrists have come--there are many antichrists, and they have already come, but "antichrist" has not come yet. Hence it appears there's a difference between "antichrist" who shall come, and the "many antichrists" who have already come. As for whether "antichrist" is a big one while the "many antichrists" are little, I'm not sure can be determined from the passage. It appears that in order to make that further distinction, one would need to identify the "man of sin" with "antichrist who shall come." Once that is done, we then apply the term "the Antichrist" to that identification, and so get the distinction between "big" and "little".
(I also note that John does not identify when "antichrist" will come, but only that "antichrist" had not come yet at the time of writing; interesting. But I also note that I'm not entirely sure of my above understanding on the passage; it seems John is saying, in the same spirit as in 1 John 4 except without a plural number having already come, that "you heard that antichrist shall come; antichrist has come, many antichrists are around now", with "antichrist" perhaps being understood not individually but rather as comprising the many antichrists who have come)
However, I'm not sure whether the words of the confession are singling out "the Antichrist", but rather, they seem to merely state that the Pope is the particular antichrist that is the man of sin. Though I guess historically, the "man of sin" antichrist would be "the Antichrist" (as it appears from one of the other confessions you quoted, and perhaps also from the capitalization of "Antichrist" in the WCF).
I was adopted into somewhat of an interesting home. A Roman Catholic mother, from a very large and very Catholic family, who broke the rules big time and married a Methodist, although my day never in my memory ever attended a church service anywhere. As a young Catholic in catechism class circa 1950, we we taught taught openly that all Protestants would burn in hell....Excuse the use of a term many today don’t not even think exist, but the nuns who taught me, had no qualms in telling us who they thought would fit the bill as the “AntiChrist” in the world.... Fortunately, I violated the rules of my original church, as did my mother, and I married a Protestant, and found myself, to my great surprise, a Presbyterian at heart. Thank God for his mysterious ways in bringing His sheep into the right fold....I think at the time of the Reformation , the Pope was an obvious choice and remains so today, but our denominational frenzy has also created many little antichrist among our ranks has it not???? Could it not be that if we are to have a major Antichrist at the end time, who’s to say he won’t be a apostate Protestant ?
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
I hold to the historic position.
It is interesting to note that Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, argued extensively and persuasively that the Papacy is the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; but he then proceeded to argue, oddly enough, that the man of sin is not identical to the Antichrist.
It should also be realized that this was indirectly referenced in the original Article 36 of the Belgic Confession. "And their [civil magistrates'] office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of Antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted." As I recall, the original preface to the Synod of Dordt also contained a side reference to the Roman Antichrist (as does the National Covenant of Scotland); and the statement in the Westminster Confession was first contained in the Irish Articles of Religion, drawn up by James Ussher for the (Anglican) Church of Ireland. In other words, this was a universally-held confessional position of confessionally Reformed churches.
It is interesting to note that Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, argued extensively and persuasively that the Papacy is the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; but he then proceeded to argue, oddly enough, that the man of sin is not identical to the Antichrist.
It should also be realized that this was indirectly referenced in the original Article 36 of the Belgic Confession. "And their [civil magistrates'] office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of Antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted." As I recall, the original preface to the Synod of Dordt also contained a side reference to the Roman Antichrist (as does the National Covenant of Scotland); and the statement in the Westminster Confession was first contained in the Irish Articles of Religion, drawn up by James Ussher for the (Anglican) Church of Ireland. In other words, this was a universally-held confessional position of confessionally Reformed churches.
- Status
