Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter  This in an interesting perspective. Assuming the papacy is the Anti-Christ, why would it be wrong to include a statement in the confession acknowledging it? The question is more a q. about the nature and authority of creeds then eschatology, but what are your thoughts? |
Confessions and creeds should stick to being summaries of the doctrine contained in scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer The Confession is making an ecclesiological statement. No one doubts that it is appropriate for the Confession to refute transubstantiation in the language of Scripture. Why should it be inappropriate for the same Confession to adopt the language of Scripture to refute the idea of a visible head of the church? It appears to me that the difficulty lies in a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations. Blessings! |
The American revisions do retain the language that the Pope of Rome is in no way the visible head of the church. This is using scripture to refute the claims of Rome. However, making a positive claim that the Pope is the Antichrist goes too far. They might as link the defeat of the Spanish Armada with some event in Revelation while they are at it. I say leave the interpreting of providence to the dispensationalists.
Quote:
|
By the same process of reasoning a Christian comes to understand that he is in fact a Christian. The major is found in the Scriptural description of a Christian, and the minor is found in the conscience bearing a person witness in the Holy Spirit that he is what Scripture describes.
|
If the confessions contained language that John Calvin was a saint I would also object.