Pope as antichrist

Status
Not open for further replies.

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Is it heresy to not believe that the pope is antichrist(the man of sin)?

When did Protestants start moving away from this view and why?

Has there ever been any ecclesiastical action from the identity of the antichrist?

I would love some more background on this subject.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by raderag
Is it heresy to not believe that the pope is antichrist(the man of sin)?

When did Protestants start moving away from this view and why?

Has there ever been any ecclesiastical action from the identity of the antichrist?

I would love some more background on this subject.

Brett,
In light of what Andrew reported the other day in the "Vicar of Christ" thread, I would have tio say that to believe otherwise is heresy. I hold to the confession that states that the pope is indeed the anti-Christ. My understanding of this is that it is the office of pope and not necessarily any one individual.
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by raderag
Is it heresy to not believe that the pope is antichrist(the man of sin)?

When did Protestants start moving away from this view and why?

Has there ever been any ecclesiastical action from the identity of the antichrist?

I would love some more background on this subject.

Brett,
In light of what Andrew reported the other day in the "Vicar of Christ" thread, I would have tio say that to believe otherwise is heresy. I hold to the confession that states that the pope is indeed the anti-Christ. My understanding of this is that it is the office of pope and not necessarily any one individual.

Scott,

I must have missed that thread. So, I guess you think the PCA was mistaken to adopt the American confession?

Why is it heresy? There are alot of heretics in the PCA then.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I'm offended by the revisions to the Confession, even though I believe Nero was *the* Antichrist, I see the Pope as such, practically speaking.
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I'm offended by the revisions to the Confession, even though I believe Nero was *the* Antichrist, I see the Pope as such, practically speaking.

Hmmm. So you think Nero is the Antichrist and you an affirm WCF on this matter? How is this so?
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
if you look at my post on the "man of sin" thread you will see why i think the man of sin is not the pope but a first century figure probsbly nero.
p.s the bible says that anyone who deniews that Jesus comes inthe fleash is the antichrist...i think that counts the pope out :detective:
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by cornelius vantil
if you look at my post on the "man of sin" thread you will see why i think the man of sin is not the pope but a first century figure probsbly nero.
p.s the bible says that anyone who deniews that Jesus comes inthe fleash is the antichrist...i think that counts the pope out :detective:

Ok, so you are a partial preterist?

I guess that Scott is saying you hold to heresy then???
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
i do not see why, there where those int he reformed tradition who were partial preterist
j. owen
j.b. lightfoot

just to name 2, i do not mind being heretick with them! :lol:
 

sastark

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by cornelius vantil
p.s the bible says that anyone who deniews that Jesus comes inthe fleash is the antichrist...i think that counts the pope out :detective:

Here's what the verse actually says (NKJV):

"and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." - 1 John 4:3

It does not say that anyone who denies Jesus comes in the flesh is the antichrist. It says that every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and is this spirit of Antichrist.

A minor difference, perhaps, but an important one.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a primary source for Nero denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh (using your criteria, not 1 John 4:3)? For all we know, Nero believed He had come in the flesh, since there were still eye witnesses alive in Nero's day who had seen Christ.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Just for the record, the PCA subscribes to the WCF.
The confession states:

VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [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.]

13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22
14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Just to clearify......Possibly, I used the wrong terminology.

What I meant was that IF the WCF is correct, and IF the office of the pope is the antichrist, to see him as anything other than the antichrist would be sinful.

Hermenio believes otherwise. This does not make him heretical as he does believe that there is in fact an antichrist. IfI am wrong, I am sinning. If he is, he is sinning.

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
nero is not the antichrist in technicla sence he did not deny that Jesus comes in the flesh. the reformers used the term antichrist to refer t the man of sin in 2 thes. 2. or the beast in rev. i think they were wrong in appling the term "antichrist" to those passages but that is a thread for another time. :cool:
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Just for the record, the PCA subscribes to the WCF.
The confession states:

VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [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.]

13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22
14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4

Scott, the PCA affirms the ammended verision without the mention of the antichrist.

http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm#chapxxv

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.
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Just to clearify......Possibly, I used the wrong terminology.

What I meant was that IF the WCF is correct, and IF the office of the pope is the antichrist, to see him as anything other than the antichrist would be sinful.

Hermenio believes otherwise. This does not make him heretical as he does believe that there is in fact an antichrist. IfI am wrong, I am sinning. If he is, he is sinning.

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Ok thanks. So it is not heretical to hold that the Pope is not the antichrist?
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Just for the record, the PCA subscribes to the WCF.
The confession states:

VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [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.]

13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22
14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4

Actually, the PCA has minor revisions to the WCF so that the version they hold to does not include the last phrase.

See Here for more.

P.S. I DO hold that the papacy is the best fit for the Antichrist.

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
I agree.

The Pope is Antichrist as the original WCF says, and the erroneous drift away from this affirmation by the cloud of witnesses from the Reformation era and beyond does not bode well for the Protestant Church. However, I would not say that a disagreement on the interpretation of prophecy is of such fundamental importance that it is a matter of heresy. On the other hand, it certainly does affect how one understands so much of the prophetic books of the Bible, like Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, Revelations and more.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
This is one of the minor points that Andrew and I disagree on, but I agree with him: aren't we dropping the "H-Bomb" a little too frequently and a little too casually here?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Draught Horse
This is one of the minor points that Andrew and I disagree on, but I agree with him: aren't we dropping the "H-Bomb" a little too frequently and a little too casually here?

Jacob,
I am guilty of this. We need to all reflect on this.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
If anyone one is interested, Vos has a great chapter on this subject in his Pauline Eschatology. He essentially argues that the Antichrist will not be someone who claims to represent Christ or even claim to be a messiah, because that would undercut his own divine claims to Deity and worship, but would instead be someone who claims to be God himself. If Vos is right, then the Pope could not be the Antichrist, unless the Pope at some point claims to be God. :2cents:
 

Solo Christo

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by puritansailor
If Vos is right, then the Pope could not be the Antichrist, unless the Pope at some point claims to be God. :2cents:
The Pope claims the power, rights, place, and authority of God and demands such recognition from those beneath him. in my opinion, there is not much of a difference.
 

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
that is the one chapter on the pauline eschatology that i liked the least. he did not give concrete answers but ends the chapter saying we will never know what this passage means untill its fullfillment.
 

smallbeans

Puritan Board Freshman
Yikes, guys. The only things that are heretical are those things that are in opposition to the ecumenical creeds + Pelagianism and a few other heresies. The word "heresy" is very strong language. One's opinion on the identity of the man of sin is hardly heresy either way. The word "heresy" is used very loosely on these boards and it is unfortunate. People who deny the Trinity are heretics. People who deny that the Pope is the antichrist just simply disagree with the "historicist" approach to eschatology.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I agree.

The Pope is Antichrist as the original WCF says, and the erroneous drift away from this affirmation by the cloud of witnesses from the Reformation era and beyond does not bode well for the Protestant Church. However, I would not say that a disagreement on the interpretation of prophecy is of such fundamental importance that it is a matter of heresy. On the other hand, it certainly does affect how one understands so much of the prophetic books of the Bible, like Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, Revelations and more.

I agree. But I also agree that this demonstrates the continued problem of "Evangelicalism" which rules the day even in denominstaitons that would say otherwise (even if it is tongue in cheek).
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Originally posted by smallbeans
Yikes, guys. The only things that are heretical are those things that are in opposition to the ecumenical creeds + Pelagianism and a few other heresies. The word "heresy" is very strong language. One's opinion on the identity of the man of sin is hardly heresy either way. The word "heresy" is used very loosely on these boards and it is unfortunate. People who deny the Trinity are heretics. People who deny that the Pope is the antichrist just simply disagree with the "historicist" approach to eschatology.

Its a bit more than that. That, in and of itslef, is a bit loose. I know mormons who can agree with most of early creeds, and many Roman Catholics who tout the Apsotles Creed.

Heresy, taken strictly among divines, is for some notorious, false, and perverse opinion, opposing and subverting the faith once delivered to the saints, as Jude says, or overthrowing the form of wholesome words, as Paul says. It may be rightly described: "Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant to and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary to salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered to by a professed Christian."

In other words -
- those who deny the deity of Christ are heretics.
- those who deny the Trinity are heretics.
- those who purport the New Persepctive on Paul, or the FV are heretics.
- those who deny justification by faith alone are heretics.

and like things....

Titus 3:10 is a great passage on that.

The Scriptures charge sin, perniciousness, and damnation upon them. Paul reckons them among those works of the flesh which shut persons out of the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). Peter calls them pernicious and damnable, and such as bring swift destruction; and, speaking of the authors of them, he says that their damnation slumbers not (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Heresies are compared in Scripture sometimes to gangrene or canker, 2 Timothy 2:17, "Their word will eat as doth a canker." The canker is an invading ulcer, creeping from joint to joint, corrupting one part after another till, at length, it eats out the very heart and life.

Jesus Christ and His apostles give special charges and caveats against them, to take heed and beware of them, which they never would have done had they not been dangerous. Mark 8:15, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Matthew 7:15, "Beware of False Prophets." Philippians 3:2, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." 2 Peter 3:17, "Beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

In the 1640's the ten chief "heresies" posted were:

1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.
2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.
3) That there is no original sin.
4) That the will of man is still free.
5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace.
6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men.
7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel.
8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.
9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.
10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.
 

Marcos

Inactive User
What we really have to ask is when was the last temple built, who built it and when was it destroyed. Does the bible speak of another temple being built after the last destruction?...hint A.D. 70 Herods temple
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top