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

[kevin.carroll]

For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?

The American version of the confession, adopted in 1789 reads,

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."
So, as you can see, we have no subscriptional problem within our own communion.

 

[Confessor]

For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?

The American version of the confession, adopted in 1789 reads,

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."
So, as you can see, we have no subscriptional problem within our own communion.

I don't think Rev. Winzer was pointing out a confessional issue as much as a logical issue.

 

[YXU]

For those who disagree with the Confession, do you affirm that the Pope is the head of the church? If you don't, how can it be denied that the claims of the Papacy correspond with the claims of the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2:4?

The American version of the confession, adopted in 1789 reads,

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."
So, as you can see, we have no subscriptional problem within our own communion.

If you agree that the Pope of Rome is not the head of the church, but disagree that the Pope of Rome is that antichrist and man of sin, then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then? It is contradicting. For who can be called the mother of all harlots and abominations other than the Pope of Rome and the church which he is the head.

 

[historyb]

Ancient Rome itself through Nero

 

[MW]

I don't think Rev. Winzer was pointing out a confessional issue as much as a logical issue.

Exactly; the logical consequence of the revision amounts to the same proposition as the original. Major: He who exalts himself in the temple of God is the man of sin. Minor: The Pope of Rome exalts himself in the temple of God. Ergo: The Pope of Rome is the man of sin. The plain words of 2 Thess. 2:4 established the major. The plain words of the revision of the Confession establishes the minor. The only reasonable conclusion is that which is drawn by the original wording of the Confession.

 

[DMcFadden]

Beast, "Whore of Babylon, "man of sin," etc.

In the popular (e.g., Left Behind) imagination, we should expect a SINister bogeyman of unmitigated evil and depravity.

I'm of the opinion that semi-Pelagianism is a far better candidate for such a Satanic ploy. The "religious" attractions of it make it a devilishly seductive alternative to the Gospel.

 

[YXU]

Ancient Rome itself through Nero

If so be it, then why the church is still under various pollutions. The chapter follows the destruction of Babylon is a glorious victory of Jesus Christ (Rev. Chapter 19), corresponding to that of Ezekiel Chapter 38, that the people should know the LORD. The chapter follows that is the millennium (Chapter 20)which fulfills a lot of the prophecies of old. All these things have not be fulfilled yet. The nations have not recognised Jesus as the Lord, yet.

And if Nero be that antichrist, then what is the deadly wound that was healed, what is the image of the beast, how did Nero come out of us, as he was never part of us, and what is the apostasy that happened before the revealing of the antichrist? The time of the church under the persecution of the antichrist is 1260 days, how does it work with Nero? When did Nero sit in the temple of God? And why John in his epistles said that the antichrist shall come, but Nero was already dead by that time. How does Nero fits the description of the little horn, who are the three horns that were plucked out by that little horn? After the destruction of the antichrist, and the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High. (Dan. 7:27), we have not seen such thing happen after the death of Nero, what we have seen right now is the people of God in the wilderness.

 

[Peairtach]

Ancient Rome itself through Nero

Nero may fit a picture of the first beast in Revelation, as the head of the Roman Empire, as 666/616 and hence represents statist/worldly persecution of Christians which is still with us and continues down to the present day. This beast is never called the Antichrist, the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition.

There seems to be a conflating of ideas here so that some seem to roll all these different eschatalogical characters into one. Let's not conflate when the Bible is talking of statist/worldly persecution (first beast) with ecclesiastical/spiritual heresy (second beast).

Re the Antichrist/antichrists, John indicates that such must have a Christian veneer and come from within the Church, while denying the reality of Christianity. Such were the Gnostic Christians of John's day and such is the Papacy.

Re Nero sitting in God's Temple, I'm not aware that he ever did such, whether you take the Temple to be the Temple at Jerusalem or God's Church. I do not know what profound eschatalogical significance it would have if he did, as he was only around for a short period.

The Papacy on the other hand has been around for donkey's, sits enthroned in God's Temple, the Church, and has led and continues to lead millions to Hell. Quite a significant and notorious and blatant antichrist. The most significant, notorious and blatant Antichrist.

This does not mean we should be obsessed with the Papacy to the exclusion of other antichrists (second beast), the dangers of statist persecution (first beast) and apostasy in the church (Babylon).

These things will always be with us until the Golden Age when Satan is fully bound.

 

[YXU]

Ancient Rome itself through Nero

Nero may fit a picture of the first beast in Revelation, as the head of the Roman Empire, as 666/616 and hence represents statist/worldly persecution of Christians which is still with us and continues down to the present day. This beast is never called the Antichrist, the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition.

There seems to be a conflating of ideas here so that some seem to roll all these different eschatalogical characters into one. Let's not conflate when the Bible is talking of statist/worldly persecution (first beast) with ecclesiastical/spiritual heresy (second beast).

Re the Antichrist/antichrists, John indicates that such must have a Christian veneer and come from within the Church, while denying the reality of Christianity. Such were the Gnostic Christians of John's day and such is the Papacy.

Re Nero sitting in God's Temple, I'm not aware that he ever did such, whether you take the Temple to be the Temple at Jerusalem or God's Church. I do not know what profound eschatalogical significance it would have if he did, as he was only around for a short period.

The Papacy on the other hand has been around for donkey's, sits enthroned in God's Temple, the Church, and has led and continues to lead millions to Hell. Quite a significant and notorious and blatant antichrist. The most significant, notorious and blatant Antichrist.

This does not mean we should be obsessed with the Papacy to the exclusion of other antichrists (second beast), the dangers of statist persecution (first beast) and apostasy in the church (Babylon).

These things will always be with us until the Golden Age when Satan is fully bound.

Richard,

I think it is reasonable that the first beast whose wound was healed, and the second whose number is 666, and the great harlot, all of them are describing the Pope of Rome and the church where he is the head from different prespectives. For the time 1260 days is assigned to the first beast out of the sea, which corresponds perfectly to that which is in Daniel Chapter7, while the second beast is the little horn. The rise of the little horn and its evil doings healed the deadly wound of the empire whose power was lost. And the image of the first beast which is the empire is the little horn or the Pope of Rome itself.

Also the number of Nero's name counts 666 in the Hebrew language which does not have weight, compared to the number of the word latin church in Greek.

 

[SolaGratia]

Gregory I (540-604):

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" and compares the man who chooses the title "universal bishop" to Satan.

[Gregory I of Rome, Book V, Epistle 18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, 12:166]

The Roman Catholic Pope is the Anti-Christ. Period.

Case Closed!

 

[CNJ]

There are only four verses in the Bible with the term antichrist. But we don't know that there is one antichrist according to I John 2:18 where John says it is the end times since there are many antichrists. I John 2:22 and 2 John 7 say that antichrists are those who deny the Father and the Son. I John 4:3 and I John 2:18 say that the antichrist was already in John's world.

See Millennial Dreams where I (as NewKidontheBlogg) am also wrestling with this issue.

 

[kevin.carroll]

YXU, et al, sounds to me like Reformed dispensationalism, i.e. having all the eschatological answers.

You ask, "then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then?" Don't know. I'm sure it will be clear when it happens.

If the pope is the AC, and folks are pointing to the Thessalonian passage as proof, then which pope? If the answer is the office of pope, then why does Paul seem to anticipate a single man?

I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. Re Rome: Rome bad, grace good. I figure the rest will kind of sort itself out.

 

[JM]

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.

Is it "YXU, et al" the confessions?

 

[kevin.carroll]

There are only four verses in the Bible with the term antichrist. But we don't know that there is one antichrist according to I John 2:18 where John says it is the end times since there are many antichrists. I John 2:22 and 2 John 7 say that antichrists are those who deny the Father and the Son. I John 4:3 and I John 2:18 say that the antichrist was already in John's world.

See Millennial Dreams where I (as NewKidontheBlogg) am also wrestling with this issue.

BTW, thisis a good point. John seems to indicate that anti-Christ is both a spirit of error and any individual who preaches/teaches error. In that regard, the pope is anti-Christ. Whether he is Paul's man of sin remains to be seen.

-----Added 5/23/2009 at 04:09:49 EST-----

No, JM. I just think the confessions there are guilty of a dispensational type error, i.e. reading the Scriptures in light of their times and not the other way around.

The RCC did not exist when Paul wrote, so it seems ludicrous to think that is what he referred to.

In any event, I am much more interested in the appearing of Christ than of anti-Christ, whoever/whatever he may be.

 

[JM]

Ok, understood.

 

[Confessor]

You ask, "then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then?" Don't know. I'm sure it will be clear when it happens.

The Reformers thought it was awfully clear. I'm not trying to impugn your perceptive abilities; I just want to ensure that you don't set too high a standard. We can't expect the Antichrist to say, "I am sitting in the temple of God; I claim to be Christian but I am actually an agent of Satan; read 2 Thessalonians 2 if you don't believe me."

As for the man of sin, he has to be someone who has infiltrated the church and claims friendship with Christ (like Judas, the original man of sin); he has to exalt himself above all things and equate himself with God (v. 4); he has to be a great deceiver (v. 10)...can you imagine a better candidate than the papacy?

Clearly the antichrist cannot be Islamic or atheistic, given that he must be a vice-Christ, a deceptive substitute. The papacy claims all authority in things temporal and spiritual (contra Christ's claim in Matthew 28:18), thereby exalting himself above all earthly things. He is blasphemously referred to as the Good Shepherd and Heavenly Father, titles that should be reserved for God, thereby exalting himself to the status of God. His religion has a false substitute for everything Biblical: the pope, a different god; the Church, a different savior; the Mass, a different sacrifice; the priesthood, a different mediator; the sacraments, a different means of sanctification; infused righteousness; a different means of justification; and the confessional, a different means of pardon -- Romanism attempts to subvert Christ and His Biblical Church at every junction. The Roman church is also infamous for its counterfeit miracles (v. 9).

If this doesn't convince you (and I am not trying to say my presentation of the argument is infallible), then fine; but please remember what exactly we need to "clearly see" in order to find the Antichrist. The Reformers and Puritans were unanimous in the clarity of the papacy as antichrist; to say they were somehow confined to their times -- not that you necessarily do -- is to wrongly brush aside their arguments.

If the pope is the AC, and folks are pointing to the Thessalonian passage as proof, then which pope? If the answer is the office of pope, then why does Paul seem to anticipate a single man?

All the work anticipated to be done by the man of sin surely seems to point to a succession of men. And considering that the papacy is a one-man office, he fits this criterion admirably.

 

[Spinningplates2]

Ancient Rome itself through Nero

Nero was the Beast. Pope is one of many antichrists.

 

[kalawine]

I believe that Nero was the Anti-Christ.

I agree. THE Anti-Christ; not AN Anti-Christ. Nero fits the bill.

 

[YXU]

YXU, et al, sounds to me like Reformed dispensationalism, i.e. having all the eschatological answers.

You ask, "then in whom is the prophecy fulfilled then?" Don't know. I'm sure it will be clear when it happens.

If the pope is the AC, and folks are pointing to the Thessalonian passage as proof, then which pope? If the answer is the office of pope, then why does Paul seem to anticipate a single man?

I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. Re Rome: Rome bad, grace good. I figure the rest will kind of sort itself out.

If we were in the first to the fourth century, we may well say we don't know. Because such will not be revealed until the falling away, and we have almost no relevant information. But as in this point of time, we may well say, the reformers are absolutely correct. The reformers have various eschatological interpretation, but, the Pope of Rome is the antichrist is held by all of them.

However, it is worth to notice that many farthers although being unsure about the antichrist's identification, understand the empire being the one that restrains. Some connections have been drawn with Daniel Chapter 7, that the empire will fall and then 10 horns arise, the little one will subdue the other 3. Nero cannot be the case because, the empire has not falled yet.

The antichrist being a single man is not a Biblical teaching, but popish teaching. Such works cannot be done by an individual but a succession of individuals. And also, there cannot be any individual who can live for 1260 years of age.

Also, the scripture puts no light weight to this doctrine, as it was repeated in several occasions, that we should take heed to it.

Some yet future antichrist theory is popish invention, being held by many Christians today, is another powerful evidence that many who think they are not under any influence of the Pope, but actually are drunk by her cup of fornication and other false doctrines.

12. Q. Is not the Pope of Rome the head of the church?

A. No; he is the Antichrist.

13. Q. Why so?

A. Because every thing is fulfilled in him that was foretold of the Antichrist.

Quote from Abraham Hellenbroek's A Specimen of Divine Truths

 

[kalawine]

I hold to the confessions

I just believe the Bible.

Yes... and this is the response that any Jehovah's Witness would give you.

 

[Confessor]

I hold to the confessions

I just believe the Bible.

Yes... and this is the response that any Jehovah's Witness would give you.

Aaron was just being sarcastic.

Speaking of which, I despise when people say, "I just believe the Bible" -- when they're not joking, that is.

 

[kalawine]

I just believe the Bible.

Yes... and this is the response that any Jehovah's Witness would give you.

Aaron was just being sarcastic.

Speaking of which, I despise when people say, "I just believe the Bible" -- when they're not joking, that is.

Oops! Sorry! That one went over my head. C'mon guys... I'm only 5' 6"

-----Added 5/23/2009 at 10:28:39 EST-----

No, JM. I just think the confessions there are guilty of a dispensational type error, i.e. reading the Scriptures in light of their times and not the other way around.

The RCC did not exist when Paul wrote, so it seems ludicrous to think that is what he referred to.

Good point.

 

[Confessor]

Oops! Sorry! That one went over my head. C'mon guys... I'm only 5' 6"

No worries, I did not realize it was sarcasm myself until he pointed it out with several dictionary definitions.

The RCC did not exist when Paul wrote, so it seems ludicrous to think that is what he referred to.

I wouldn't say it's anywhere near ludicrous. Prophecies do not have to be realized at the same point they are spoken. E.g., OT prophets could declare the future existence of the Messiah and describe his characteristics without his present existence.

 

[Peairtach]

Re the Reformers viewing things from their own time, remember that the Papacy still claims 1 billion people as its own.

Any future individual, or past individual like Nero, would have to do well to take so many to Hell with him, over such a long period of time. Saying that I don't know how many of these billion are secularists, devout Romanists or if some have stumbled on the truth. No doubt many of them are spiritually deluded or otherwise badly affected for eternity by their experience of Romanism.

The book of Revelation thankfully teaches that statist deception/persecution (the First Beast), ecclesiastical/spiritual deception/persecution (the Second Beast; including the Papacy) and the apostate Church (Babylon; including the Church of Rome) will be done away with in history.

 

[Confessor]

I recently listened to Rev. Silversides's sermon on the Antichrist (linked above), and he makes a very good point: rather than the Reformers and Puritans being constrained by their times, it is those who deny the papacy is the Antichrist who are constrained by their times. In a time now of political correctness, where we shouldn't resist false doctrine if the people are nice, it can be very easy to see why this is the case.

Please note that this is not intended to be an isolated definitive argument for the papacy's being the Antichrist; I have said it rather to push the fact that those who easily brush aside the issue, because the Reformers and Puritans were allegedly constrained by their times, need to look much more closely at the historic Protestant arguments and at their own situations.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

He is blasphemously referred to as the Good Shepherd and Heavenly Father, titles that should be reserved for God, thereby exalting himself to the status of God.

Holy Father and Shepherd (minus the 'Good'). In the RCC 'Heavenly Father' is reserved for God alone; 'Good Shepherd' for Christ alone.

Not that calling a man 'Holy Father' is a good thing...

 

[JM]

Does anyone want to change their vote?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It is quite interesting to me that the vote is nearly in complete 1/3's...

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Does anyone want to change their vote?

Dunno. Ah jus' be-leeve the Bah-ble.

 

[Skyler]

This is an easy question. The answer is a definite "maybe".

It's possible that the papacy was in mind, as it technically began with Constantine, which was only a couple hundred years away from the time Paul wrote.

It's also possible that the papacy was not in mind. Not having done any sort of intensive study into the area, I cannot say one way or the other.