Thread: Do You Believe the Papacy to be the Anti-Christ?

I was from a five generation Catholic family starting from my grandparent's grandparent, according to my knowledge, my experience, and most important, the Word of God, the office of Pope is the Antichrist, the man of sin, the beast the woman with her cup of fornication.

She and her children (the Arminians, the Antinomians, and other heresies) are Satan's device to trouble the church, I also believe that they will be utterly destroyed when millenium comes in the future. (before Christ comes)

IF I can be perfectly frank.... I think that Javier Solana is the beast if not the Anti-Christ, spoke about in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Honor

IF I can be perfectly frank.... I think that Javier Solana is the beast if not the Anti-Christ, spoke about in the Bible.

Why?

that's a whole other ... maybe tomorrow I can write a s/o thread about it... for now if you just wikki him... it's enough to give you the creeps

I waited to vote, I wanted to re-visit a few texts, creeds, etc. I voted yes.

Back when I was a futurist, I thought it was Solana as well. That was then.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

the Papacy is not the anti christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.

Keon,
Perhaps their denial of it is in their belief that Christ comes in the flesh at every mass via transubstantiation.
Jim

How many Reformed Christians would the Pope and his false church had to kill for some of you to believe that he is Anti-Christ? Because it sure seems like Rome killed a lot, and that whole "human torch" thing seems like it could have come from the Anti-Christ.

Westminster Confession (1646)

25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

This is biblical and certainly has been vindicated since Trent.

Have any of you read Durham's commentary on Revelation? A friend told me he is very convincing and confessional.

Link?

Originally Posted by Theogenes

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

the Papacy is not the anti christ because the Papacy does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh as per the definition of Anti Christ found in the epistle of John.

Keon,
Perhaps their denial of it is in their belief that Christ comes in the flesh at every mass via transubstantiation.
Jim

True, but the RC church denies one of gthe main "reasons" Christ came in the flesh, and that being so that His righteousness can be Imputed to the Elect...so if a church denies one of the main reasons for the incarnation, does it not in doing so in effect deny Christ coming in the flesh??

Originally Posted by JM

Link?

No link. You have to buy it.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

For those non-historicists.--There are a number of issues that I have never seen seriously dealt with in 2 Thess. 2. The passage points out a "man of sin" emerging from a false church. This man claims the authority of God over the church. Paul speaks of the "man of sin" in the present tense but says he is being restrained. Paul is discreet about the "you know what" that is restraining. Later the "man of sin" is being restrained by a "he". What is the "you know what" and the "he" that restrains the MOS? Keep in mind that there must be an adequate explanation for the obvious discretion Paul is using when describing the restrainers.

I'll just answer my own question. Paul was obviously speaking of the Roman Emperor (he) and the Roman Empire (what). He would not need discretion with anyone/anything else. The theological trappings for a pope were already at work but could not come to power until the openly Pagan absolute power was removed. This "man of sin" would not be destroyed until Christ's return. There certainly isn't a man that has been around this long but the ideals of a papacy have been. They were restrained in Paul's day until the Emperor left Rome.

The span of being in power since the removal of the emperor and existing until the return of Christ creates a historicist framework. In that time period who else has come out of a false Christianity and claimed the authority of God? Who has had authority over the visible church? If not the papacy then you (non-historicists) have to pick someone who has existed in that span of time.

Originally Posted by WDG

Have any of you read Durham's commentary on Revelation? A friend told me he is very convincing and confessional.

Originally Posted by JM

Link?

Excerpts from Commentary on Revelation by James Durham

enough for a good reading

Concerning Writing

Concerning a Calling to the Ministry, and Clearness therein.

This site also has great material from the Scottish Puritan and others

James Durham Thesis

I thought I had read some of it in the past, thanks.

The Papacy is an anti-christ. But, it is not the anti-christ....

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Simple Question.

(Like anything on the PB could be simple )

Westminster Confession (1646)

25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

26.4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.

Originally Posted by Yodas_Prodigy

The Papacy is an anti-christ. But, it is not the anti-christ....

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Simple Question.

(Like anything on the PB could be simple )

Westminster Confession (1646)

25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

26.4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ.

Por que?

I think the whole thing is muddied by differing snapshots in Church History. The Papacy is anti Christ, however it has not yet matured into its full blown state of evil oppression. Foxes book of Martyrs shows many who have paid the ultimate price for their testimony, but I believe we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of what Jesus will crush upon his return.

Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?

just a pondering...

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?

just a pondering...

To better understand what PB is all about read this awesome post by Rich: Does God Have Emotions?

KMK:

That emotional God thread is much different:

It deals with the Godhead and not eschatological speculation.

The Confesssions MUST address the central doctrines that determine who is "IN" the faith, but eschatological positions are much less important and more "iffy."


Also, in defense of Dr. Bob Gonzales, I don't think he was promoting heresy but was fumbling at the edges of orthodoxy looking for some further clarifications (and falling over the edge). He is never anything but humble and gentle and I think that thread was cut short prematurely.

If we respect elders and teachers, they ought to be given a chance to defend themselves when it appears that they are teaching error (and yes, I do agree that his speculations appeared to be in error.....but I will never know for sure now will I?).

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?

just a pondering...

The Confessions are very respected as being a summary of what the scriptures teach put together by a very large body of very godly and very intelligent men. The were like theological geniuses. They and their collective judgement as men of God with ecclesiastical authority is not easily cast aside.

Y'all have it wrong. David Hasselhoff is the antichrist.

David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist


Theognome

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Exscuse my very newly 'reformed' ignorance. But if the confessions are not scripture, why do people get so upset at certain aspects of them being wrong? Is it possible that while in theory some 'reformed' people will say that the 'confessions' are not scripture, but in practice they treat them as if they were?

just a pondering...

The confession itself is not infallible but the doctrines summarized in the WCF are all Biblical and correct.

Backwoods Presbyterian;

Most certainly a form of anti-Christ when the pope and the RCC continues to believe he and the priests within the RCC are the only one's who can absolve people of their sin..

Originally Posted by Pergamum

KMK:

That emotional God thread is much different:

It deals with the Godhead and not eschatological speculation.

The Confesssions MUST address the central doctrines that determine who is "IN" the faith, but eschatological positions are much less important and more "iffy."


Also, in defense of Dr. Bob Gonzales, I don't think he was promoting heresy but was fumbling at the edges of orthodoxy looking for some further clarifications (and falling over the edge). He is never anything but humble and gentle and I think that thread was cut short prematurely.

If we respect elders and teachers, they ought to be given a chance to defend themselves when it appears that they are teaching error (and yes, I do agree that his speculations appeared to be in error.....but I will never know for sure now will I?).

Sorry, I was specifically speaking of these words by Rich:

I think one of the Admins probably put it best when he noted the nature of the board this way: "This board is not designed for theological innovation, but more like "rehearsing the battles of 400 years ago." We're out of touch, and proud of it."

I'm very conscious of the fact that many people read this board. Sometimes you can search for a particular term on Google and the Puritanboard pops up within hours of a post being put up.

I recognize that certain forumulations have gained a certain foothold within the Reformed camp. They don't have a good Confessional pedigree but they have enough luminaries that have taught them that they gain a certain: "If you deny that point then you're disagreeing with Hodge..." kind of appeal to them.

Frankly, at the end of the day, if we gave into every "this Reformed guy wrote this" as acceptably "within bounds" then there would be no boundaries.

I think a certain level of intellectual curiosity is good but, it seems to me, that gone are the days when a Seminary can be known for teaching the same "old truths" for generations because you're not interesting in theological circles unless some new discovery is made about the nature of God.

I think Rev. Winzer struck a chord with me once when he ironically quoted Amazing Grace (as an EP advocate) and noted that, when we've been there ten thousand years, we're not going to be re-formulating Truth.

Perhaps it's because I work in a very chaotic world where national events cause my vocation to have to constantly think on its feet about an ever-changing threat environment that I take comfort that God never changes and, consequently, neither does His Truth.

If you feel the need to push the envelope on core theological doctrines here then you're likely to find the place unwelcome for those particular discussions.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

KMK:

That emotional God thread is much different:

It deals with the Godhead and not eschatological speculation.

The Confesssions MUST address the central doctrines that determine who is "IN" the faith, but eschatological positions are much less important and more "iffy.

It could be argued that to the reformers and puritans historicist eschatology was not iffy or speculation. I know its popular to see eschatology that way in our day and time but I think that results from the popularization of futurism and preterism. Both of these views distance the church from actively opposing the man of sin. They have also opened the door for ecumenical compromises. Think about it, if the historical protestant eschatology is correct then it is not a side issue but a central and vital issue.

I was a dispy futurist for most of my life until I studied 2 Thess 2 and 1 Tim 4. I then took a class on Daniel/Revelation at Liberty Univ. and even though it was also dispensationalist/futurist it only convinced me more thoroughly that the reformers and puritans had it right. I certainly don't condemn people who have a different view but if our forefathers took it so seriously I think we shouldn't easily dismiss them on this issue (I'm not saying that's what you're doing but that is what I did for a long time).

Whether "iffy" or not, Confessions ought to summarize basic doctrine, those most rooted to determining those who are within or outside of the faith. Eschatology is secondary.

"Charges against the (Pauline) eschatology find various forms of expression. Foremost stands the (liberal) revulsion from the supernaturalism in the eschatology, for with Paul, as elsewhere in scripture, eschatology is supernaturalism in the nth degree...a so-called Christianity proving cold or hostile towards the interests of the life to come has ceased to be Christianity in the historic sense of the word.

"...the eschatological principle is so deeply embedded in the structure of the biblical religion as to precede and underlie everything else." -- Geerhardus Vos, "The Pauline Eschatology", pp. 62, 63, 66

The Vossed World: Vos: Eschatology precedes and underlies everything else

Originally Posted by JM

"Charges against the (Pauline) eschatology find various forms of expression. Foremost stands the (liberal) revulsion from the supernaturalism in the eschatology, for with Paul, as elsewhere in scripture, eschatology is supernaturalism in the nth degree...a so-called Christianity proving cold or hostile towards the interests of the life to come has ceased to be Christianity in the historic sense of the word.

"...the eschatological principle is so deeply embedded in the structure of the biblical religion as to precede and underlie everything else." -- Geerhardus Vos, "The Pauline Eschatology", pp. 62, 63, 66

The Vossed World: Vos: Eschatology precedes and underlies everything else

Keep in mind that most of "eschatology" are the basics of personal eschatology, i.e., that there will be an afterlife and a new heavens and a new earth and there will be a physical resurrection, etc. Out of the vast category "eschatology," this sub-topic of the Antichrist and finding the chronological scheme that is going to happen is minor. This quote by Vos isn't really applicable.

Originally Posted by YXU

I was from a five generation Catholic family starting from my grandparent's grandparent, according to my knowledge, my experience, and most important, the Word of God, the office of Pope is the Antichrist, the man of sin, the beast the woman with her cup of fornication.

She and her children (the Arminians, the Antinomians, and other heresies) are Satan's device to trouble the church, I also believe that they will be utterly destroyed when millenium comes in the future. (before Christ comes)

I can relate with what you have said. I am a former Roman Catholic myself, and most of my relatives are still Roman Catholics. Majority or most of my ancestors in the previous centuries were Roman Catholics as well.

My parents, sisters and I visited the home of my mother's sister (and her family) just a few hours ago. I found three Roman Catholic images in their home, and I was so saddened by the fact that this is the religion my cute little cousins (ages 5 and 3) will be raised to practice!

The teachings of the Popes are still what they were during the Protestant Reformation. They are leading souls to eternal damnation. Though I believe that the Pope is an anti-Christ, I am not yet sure whether it is right to call him as the anti-Christ. I still need to do more study on this. Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Whether "iffy" or not, Confessions ought to summarize basic doctrine, those most rooted to determining those who are within or outside of the faith.

I have heard this argued before but I don't get it. What is wrong with a church sitting down and creating a 'full orbed' (I know this word has been banned, sorry) confession that includes every jot and tittle upon which they agree? Just because the Divines had agreement on 'secondary issues' does not mean that they believed those who disagreed were unbelievers. It just meant you couldn't hold an office in the church.

Indeed, a great deal of churches have 'unwritten' confessions that include secondary issues. (Try becoming a preterist Calvary Chapel pastor, for example.)

-----Added 1/17/2009 at 05:02:06 EST-----

After rereading this post I realized that it could potentially take this thread off topic. Sorry!

The primary meaning of "anti" is "in the place of". Surely one who acts in the place of Christ (as the pope, the "vicar of Christ", does by virtue of his office) is one of the "many antichrists" (1 Jn 2:18). In this sense one may agree with the unabridged confession. But the "man of sin" ...hmm. Probably not the pope, IMHO. I will agree with a previous poster who said he will probably be Islamic, taking the sense all the way back to Ishmael "in the place of" Isaac.

Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.

Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.

I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view

In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.

Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”

The thought was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:

To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ...

“The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”

I voted option 2 because 2 Thes. 2 does not specifically name the Pope, nor does any other scripture, as the antichrist. I do agree that the office of the papacy is antichrist as would be anyone who fills it under the current Roman doctrine.

Theognome

I hold to the confessions

I just believe the Bible.

Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim

I hold to the confessions

I just believe the Bible.

And yet you held to a confession when you joined this board.

We cannot "just" believe the Bible as theology is not stated in a format that does not require interpretation, and in that interpretation we are not sovereign, the Church is, and the Church's interpretation is contained in the confessions.

I subscribe to every word of the WCF as adopted by my denomination (OPC). We accept the amended version, i.e., the "non-Antichrist" version. Are you saying that the entire OPC in in violation of the WCF? (Please tell me you're not!)

To ask it another way, if the elders of my church have given me a book of standards (WCF, WLC, WSC, BCO), and those standards NOWHERE state that the Pope is the Antichrist, must I believe such a thing anyway to remain confessional, in your view?

-----Added 2/24/2009 at 03:45:42 EST-----

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Those who are officers in churches with a modified confession dropping the identification of the Pope as the Anti-Christ should not be accused of being unfaithful in their subscription. Their ordination vows only hold them accountable to the confession to which they subscribed. Honesty in subscription does not require them to believe or teach the Pope is the Anti-Christ. There is room for charity here.

Though I’m in the OPC, which holds the American modified WCF, I affirm the original without reservation. There is nothing in the American form of the confession requiring me to believe the Pope is NOT the Anti-Christ.

I have found European Reformed folk more sensitive to this issue than Americans. The Roman Church here has positioned themselves as another non-threatening denomination among many. About six years ago, my Scottish and Ulster Reformed friends helped me rethink this issue. The following lecture by David Silversides of Loughbrickland, Ulster, was helpful:

SermonAudio.com - The Antichrist - A Biblical & Confessional view

In the early 70's I attended Princeton Theological Seminary for one year. I took an introductory theology course with Dr. Edward Dowey, who chaired the committee of the UPCUSA, which wrote the neo-orthodox Confession of 1967. Though certainly a theological liberal, I found Dowey personally an interesting and honest man, knowledgeable of historical theology. I don’t think Dowey believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ; but, he told an interesting story which he no doubt thought humorous.

Dowey served as a Presbyterian Navy chaplain in WWII with a Jesuit Roman Catholic chaplain. When he explained to the Jesuit the Reformed and confessional argument for the Pope being the Anti-Christ, the latter answered, “The logic is irrefutable; the thought is unthinkable.”

The though was thinkable for the Westminster Assembly, Puritans, 17th century Church of Scotland., Covenanters, and is also for me. The Westminster Directory for the Public of God recommended:

To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, ...

It appears pastor Farrell beat me to my point in the beginning of his post. Thank you, sir.