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."

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

What are you wondering about it?

__________________
Louis DiBiase
Louisville, KY

I know Ken Gentry does not hold to Papal Antichrist.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

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.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Elder, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."

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]

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

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.

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

Popes come and go. Ask them which one.

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

This was not changed in 1789, but is one of the 1903 changes by the northern church as it was sliding into liberalism.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

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?

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

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"?

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The issue has always been the papacy. "Pope" is used collectively. That's the convention.