Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum  Well, to the Reformers and Divines there were no other possible positions one could take. Who or what else could it or can it be other than the self-proclaimed Christ on earth?
Really, what institution, what group, better fits the bill? I can't name one other plausible alternative. |
I can't think of any institution or group that better fits the bill either and I quite agree I believe the papacy is the Antichrist. That said, the Confession plainly states: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added . . . ." Therefore it follows that since the Antichrist is not explicitly identified in Scripture as the papacy, and, since it cannot be validly inferred from Scripture, it should not be part and parcel of the positive affirmations of the Confession. It remains a very plausible opinion. Ecclesiological statements not withstanding, If someone can provide a valid deduction from Scripture in support of this doctrine I would love to see it.
The difference between the positive confession that the pope is **The Antichirst** and a refutation of transubstantiation, is that transubstantiation is rejected as being contrary to Scripture and the Scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper is positively affirmed (i.e., validly deduced from Scripture). There are many things which are contrary to Scripture and a few of those are even mentioned in Scripture, but there are a lot of things which do not comport with Scripture yet are not included in the Confession. I think all positive affirmations ought to follow the Confessional principle clearly express in WCF I:VI and this has nothing to do with a "modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations." It's just simple logic.