Pope as Antichrist, Westminster, and 1689 2LBCF

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.:2cents:
 
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.:2cents:

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.

:):detective: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 :westminster:and a communing and confessed Presbyterian.:calvin:

In grace,
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top