What's more annoying than a newbie on a message board starting a thread on a subject that's been beat to death? I dunno... the mainstream media maybe. Anyway, my question is a little more nuanced than a broad discussion of whether the pope is the antichrist: If the Westminster Confession (and its doppleganger, the 2nd London Confession) declare the pope to be antichrist (WCF 25.6), and if agreement with these confessions is a prerequisite for participating on PuritanBoard, then can questioning this teaching get one banned? I ask because I truly do not believe that Benedict is the Antichrist or an antichrist. I DO AFFIRM what is written in the 2nd London Confession in 2 ways: 1. at the time of writing, the current pope and all popes in recent memory were indeed antichrists, and 2. The papacy itself is prone to the spirit of antichrist (by its confusion of the two kingdoms and its anathemas at Trent). I suppose the sub-question is, does our understanding of the confessions (as NON-inspired documents) allow them to be snapshots in time of what a proper understanding of Scripture looked like in its context. I'm certainly not pushing for some "living document" philosophy, but rather for us to consider historical context when applying the confessions as we would with any historical document. DIG IN!