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

[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?).

 

[Augusta]

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 judgment as men of God with ecclesiastical authority is not easily cast aside.

 

[Theognome]

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

David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist


Theognome

 

[YXU]

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.

 

[BJClark]

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..

 

[KMK]

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.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

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 Dispensational 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).

 

[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. Eschatology is secondary.

 

[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

 

[Pergamum]

"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.

 

[A.J.]

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 millennium 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.

 

[KMK]

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!

 

[Marno]

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, In my humble opinion. 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.

 

[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 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, ...​

 

[JM]

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

 

[Theognome]

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

 

[puritanpilgrim]

I hold to the confessions

I just believe the Bible.

 

[Hippo]

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.

 

[Contra Marcion]

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-----

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.

 

[puritanpilgrim]

Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim
Quote:
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·ro·ny (ī'rə-nē, ī'ər-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. i·ro·nies


The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.

see also:

jest
   /dʒɛst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jest] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a joke or witty remark; witticism.
2. a bantering remark; a piece of good-natured ridicule; taunt.
3. sport or fun: to speak half in jest, half in earnest.
4. the object of laughter, sport, or mockery; laughing-stock.
5. Obsolete. an exploit. Compare gest.
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak in a playful, humorous, or facetious way; joke.
7. to speak or act in mere sport, rather than in earnest; trifle (often fol. by with): Please don't jest with me.
8. to utter derisive speeches; gibe or scoff.
–verb (used with object) 9. to deride or joke at; banter.

see also:


joke
   /dʒoʊk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [johk] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, joked, jok⋅ing.
–noun 1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.
3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.
4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.
5. practical joke.
–verb (used without object) 6. to speak or act in a playful or merry way: He was always joking with us.
7. to say something in fun or teasing rather than in earnest; be facetious: He didn't really mean it, he was only joking.
–verb (used with object) 8. to subject to jokes; make fun of; tease.
9. to obtain by joking: The comedian joked coins from the audience.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

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-----

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.

Are any revisions acceptable? What if a large group of Brazilians got together and revised the WCF further and removed the affirmation of the doctrines of grace? Would we consider them truly confessional? It may be said that eschatology is not as central as the doctrines of grace but eschatology was central enough for the divines to include it in their confession. How can we change their confession and still say we truly adhere to the confession?

 

[Augusta]

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, ...​

The sermon by Rev. Silversides is really good. I am going to listen again and take notes. He fully exegetes the Thessalonians passage verse by verse. I highly recommend it.

 

[Marno]

I voted that the Scripture does not name the pope as the antichrist, but on the other hand, it doesn't say the pope isn't an antichrist (which he obviously is, as the "vicar" of Christ).

anti = "in the place of"

 

[Edward]

Ummm....


I appreciate you posting this as I now realize I have a disagreement with the WCF here. I will look forward to reading the replies.

It's not in the current PCA or OPC versions - so you are safe.

Of course, we still don't allow marriage with Papists.

 

[Andyman]

There is nowhere in Scripture that definitively points out who will be the antichrist; its a guessing game at best. He may be in the world and perhaps even in public office right now, but I don't believe that even the antichrist will know who he is until he comes to power.

 

[relostuff]

OK I voted maybe, but I will have to change it to Yes,,,,, I agree with WCF and the 1689BCF

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.

 

[kevin.carroll]

The Confessions are just wrong on this point. Since that clause has been excised from our constitution, I don't have to take an exception. Cool Beans.

 

[Iconoclast]

20 The Identification of the Man of Sin
Rev. Ken Gentry • 41 min.
GPTS & Mt. Olive 500+ Play! | MP3

TUE 12/07/2004
Special Meeting

Nero

 

[ewenlin]

Hey why isn't there an option for Nicolae Carpathia. hahaha just kidding.

 

[bug]

The confession do not actually say that the pope is the antichrist though do they, they say he is 'that antichrist.' the 'anti' is the greek root, not the latin, it means subsititue, and yes the papacy is a substitute Christ. It may be dangerous, and in some situations unhelpful to designate a perticular pope as 'the antichrist', but the office certain is an antichrist.