WCF and the Antichrist

[MyCrows]

I can get behind the sentiment of the WCF and LBC of calling out the papacy as evil. However, I'm disappointed that they hitched that sentiment to
2 Thessalonians 2. Judaism was the woman that rode the beast of the Roman Empire in the first century. Today, the papacy is one of the women riding the beast of human kingdoms that are in opposition to God.

Isn't the primary point of WCF 25.6? That the Roman Catholic Church is the woman, the harlot that rides the beast?

Is not the primary thrust of the mention of the harlot in Revelation 17 and 19, that she is singular, and will be judged for her rebellion?

 

[Calvin Codger]

...the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him, (v.1)

...that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (v.3)

...an adversary, and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doth sit as God in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (v.4)

...he might be revealed in his time. (v.6)

...till he be taken out of the way. (v.7)

And then shall that wicked man be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall abolish with the brightness of his coming, (v.8)

Even him whose coming is by the effectual working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, (v.9)

And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies, (v.11)

So you believe these things have already occurred in 70? If so, what man in 70 entirely fit this description above? Surely he would be obvious in recorded history. And do you also believe these things above happened in 70?

The previous chapter in II Thessalonians seems to be clearly talking about the final judgment, not 70

Hello @Northern Crofter I would appreciate it if you would engage with my points in the previous post from which you clipped a snippet.
Here are my answers to your questions above.
1. Regarding the assembling (being gathered together) unto him, I will quote Ken Gentry:
" “gathering together to Him” Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 seems to reflect Matthew 24:31. The word translated “gather together” here is episunagoge. Its cognate verb form is found in Matthew 24:31, where Christ ties the gathering to “this generation” (Mt 24:34). It signifies the elect’s calling into Christ by means of the trumpeting in of the archetypical Great Jubilee (cf. 2Th 1:11; 2:14).3 Here it functions the same way. With the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christians will henceforth be “gathered together” in a separate and distinct “assembly” (episunagoge; the church is called a sunagoge in Jas 2:2). After the temple’s destruction God will no longer tolerate going up to the temple to worship (it will be impossible!), as Christians frequently do prior to AD 70."

2. Regarding the " a departing first," or Rebellion:
The apostasy or rebellion speaks to the revolt of the Jewish people against Rome. Even secular historians portray the Jewish Wars of 66-70 as a Jewish Revolt. To quote Gentry again ""I believe that it speaks primarily of the Jewish apostasy/rebellion against Rome. Josephus certainly calls the Jewish War against Rome an apostasia (Josephus, Life 4, 9, 10; J.W. 2:2:7; 2:16:4; 7:4:2; 7:6:1). Probably Paul merges the religious and political concepts here, though emphasizing the outbreak of the Jewish War, which results from their apostasy against God (Mt 22:1–7; Lk 19:41–44; 1Th 2:14–16). The emphasis must be on the revolt against Rome because it is future and datable, whereas the revolt against God is ongoing and cumulative."

3. Regarding the identity of the Son of Perdition
It is not required that we can identify this character by name. We know that he was alive in Paul's day because he was being restrained in Paul's day and we know the temple is still standing in Paul's day. I believe this is a Jewish high priestly character and a member of the Zealots - "a Jewish sect noted for its uncompromising opposition to pagan Rome and the polytheism it professed." This man is a/the leader of the rebellion against Rome. It was the Zealots who "In the fall of AD 66 the Jews combined in revolt, expelled the Romans from Jerusalem, and overwhelmed in the pass of Beth-Horon a Roman punitive force under Gallus" and ginned up support for the the Jews to reestablish God's "kingdom" and destroy the Romans. The Romans briefly retreated. The Jews celebrated this temporary victory. The Christians escaped. And the Romans later returned with a vengeance. It was the Zealots that burned the food inside the walls of Jerusalem in order force everyone to fight in this war. They Jews were covenant breakers under the delusion of rejecting Christ and accepting the call to rebellion. Whoever this character was, the Lord consumed him with the Spirit of his mouth at the destruction of Jerusalem.

4. Regarding the false signs and wonders:
Josephus describes 7 signs that occurred at this time. Based on the passage we're discussing, I believe Paul linked these signs to this Jewish leader. Whether all, some, or none of these signs actually occurred is immaterial. Paul called them "false signs and wonders" and they were well enough known that Josephus documented them.
-“So it was when a star resembling a sword, stood over the city[Jerusalem] and a comet which continued for a year.”
- “So again when, before the revolt and the commotion that led to war [i.e., before the war], at the time when the people were assembling for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthieus [Nisan], at the ninth hour of the night [3 a.m.] … … so brilliant a light shown round the [holy] altar and the sanctuary[of the temple] that it seemed to be broad daylight; and this continued for half an hour.
- “At that same feast [just after the 2nd sign, the great light over the altar] a cow that had been brought by someone for sacrifice gave birth [just before it was to be killed] to a lamb in the midst in the court of the Temple.”
-“The eastern gate of the inner court — it was of brass and very massive, and, when closed towards evening, could scarcely be moved by 20 men; fastened with iron-bound bars [on each side], it had bolts which were sunk to a great depth into a threshold consisting of a solid block of stone — this gate was observed at the sixth hour of the night [midnight] to have opened of its own accord. The watchmen of the temple ran and reported the matter to the captain, and he came up and with difficulty succeeded in shutting it.”
-“For before sunset throughout all parts of the country [of Judea] chariots were seen in the air and armed battalions hurtling through the clouds and encompassing the cities.”
- “Moreover, at the feast which is called Pentecost the priests [all 24 of them] on entering the inner court of the Temple by night as their custom was in the discharge of their ministrations, reported that they were conscious, first of a commotion and a din [a great noise], and after that of a voice as of a host [an army], ‘We are departing hence [from here].”
-“So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, ‘Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the Temple,’ as he added a last word, ‘and woe to me also,’ a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still on his lips he passed away.”

5. Regarding your comment on the the content of 2 Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 4 refers to the second coming. 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 refer to 70 AD. It is possible for Paul to discuss more than one topic in a letter. If you want to discuss this subject further, there is an active thread on this topic. We should join the discussion there.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I would appreciate it if you would engage with my points in the previous post from which you clipped a snippet.

I did not engage with your other points because we are coming from different traditions - I hold to the WCF as originally adopted and you admittedly do not on multiple fronts (the Antichrist, baptism, the nature of the Church). This thread was started by Steve inviting thoughts on the WCF and the Antichrist as he reexamines his views:

Pondering — and praying — as regards what sort of person it could be that “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4KJV), understanding that the “temple of God” in the NT age is the church.

His understanding is that the temple of God in the NT age is the Church - you hold more specifically that this means the invisible and not the visible Church. This is another area in which we disagree, so there seems to be little point discussing the view you presented:

It is no longer possible for a non-elect, godless unbeliever to take a seat in the temple of God. The new temple is Christ Himself and by definition could never contain an unbeliever. It is the invisible church. The possibility of an unbeliever taking their seat in the old temple of God ended in AD 70.

That the Antichrist will arise from within the (visible) Church is the view of the (original) WCF and the Scripture proofs provided are coming from that view. You are stating that the temple of God is now both "Christ Himself" and also "the invisible church." I don't see how that is possible, nor do I believe either is accurate. I could agree that the temple of God is the visible Church in keeping with II Corinthians 6, but, considering the context and audience Paul is writing in and to, the members of the visible Church in Corinth were not also all members of the invisible.

To quote Ken Gentry:
" “gathering together to Him” Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 seems to reflect Matthew 24:31. The word translated “gather together” here is episunagoge. Its cognate verb form is found in Matthew 24:31, where Christ ties the gathering to “this generation” (Mt 24:34). It signifies the elect’s calling into Christ by means of the trumpeting in of the archetypical Great Jubilee (cf. 2Th 1:11; 2:14).3 Here it functions the same way. With the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christians will henceforth be “gathered together” in a separate and distinct “assembly” (episunagoge; the church is called a sunagoge in Jas 2:2). After the temple’s destruction God will no longer tolerate going up to the temple to worship (it will be impossible!), as Christians frequently do prior to AD 70."

I like a lot of Gentry's commentary on eschatology but he is not perfect. It is a common fallacy to assume that a word used in one place by one Biblical author necessarily means the same elsewhere. What Jesus said in Matthew's gospel was in the context of preaching to the nation of Israel. What Paul writes in his Thessalonian letters was to Greeks in Thessalonica after the death and resurrection of Christ. Those are two very different audiences and occasions. Yes, there are connections, but every word common between the two passages/contexts is not automatically interchangeable in its meaning and application.

The apostasy or rebellion speaks to the revolt of the Jewish people against Rome.

This is an interpretation, not something that is arrived at from Scripture. Do you have any Reformed writers prior to/in addition to Gentry making this claim? Again, we are coming from different eschatalogical perpectives - you seem to be much further down the road to full-blown preterism than I am.

It is not required that we can identify this character by name.

Can you think of another prophecy of such significance that was fulfilled so vaguely? For example, Daniel predicted Alexander the Great and the rise of the Roman Empire, and Isaiah predicted the reign of Cyrus and the destruction of Assyria. Someone this significantly predicted in Scripture would surely be known and recorded would they not? The authors of the WCF certainly believed so, so they named him/them/it.

4. Regarding the false signs and wonders:

Relying solely on one source is always problematic - when that one source is Josephus it is even more so. Again, do you have any Reformed writers supporting this claim? Or that the early Church understood this as the fulfilment of the what Christ and Paul prophesied?

5. Regarding your comment on the the content of 2 Thessalonians:
1 Thessalonians 4 refers to the second coming. 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 refer to 70 AD. It is possible for Paul to discuss more than one topic in a letter. If you want to discuss this subject further, there is an active thread on this topic. We should join the discussion there

Brother, I did not bring the content of 2 Thessalonians into this thread. I have little to offer the other thread beyond what I wrote above (that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and Paul's epistles to the Thessaloniki are written in two different contexts to two different groups of people). But do note that the WCF twice uses II Thessalonians 2.4 to refer to the Pope/Papacy (see end of 23.4 as well as 25.6), so dialogue over this issue between two sides who have different confessions and levels of adherence to them does not seem overly fruitful.

 

[Calvin Codger]

@Northern Crofter
Please let me know you thoughts on this. Many of the points you suggest are downstream from this. Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 refer to 70 AD or the second coming? Why?

As I mentioned earlier:
The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is 70 AD. Think about how odd 2 Thessalonians 2:2 would be if you try to apply it to the eschaton: "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"
Did the Thessalonians actually think second coming and the "end of the world" had already come and they missed it?

I interpret the passage holistically to refer to 70 AD. That's driven at least in part by my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:2. I don't see how believers would worry that they missed the eschaton. So if the day of the Lord in that verse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem here, what do you do with the rest of the passage?
From NT Wright:
"‘Contrary to the thinking of both scholars and pietists of many backgrounds, Paul was not envisaging the ‘Parousia’ as an event which had to take place in his lifetime, and which would result in the ending of the space-time order. If that were so, how could he possibly write in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 that the church should not be alarmed if they received a letter saying that the ‘day of the Lord had come’? If Paul meant by ‘the day of the Lord’ the end of the space-time universe, the Thessalonians would presumably not need to be informed of the fact via the Roman postal service! Instead, Paul here reflects the early Christian tradition, going back to Jesus himself, according to which Jerusalem was to be destroyed, and according to which that destruction was to be interpreted as the wrath of God against his sinful people. In the same Thessalonian correspondence, Paul asserted that the wrath of God had indeed come upon them ‘to the uttermost’"

 

[Calvin Codger]

You are stating that the temple of God is now both "Christ Himself" and also "the invisible church." I don't see how that is possible, nor do I believe either is accurate.

The new temple is simultaneously defined as Christ Himself (Mark 14:58), believers individually (1 Corinthians 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Corinthians 6:16).

1 Peter 2:4-5
"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

How can the antichrist be "in the sight of God chosen and precious"?

 

[MW]

Then I recently read Trinity Foundation’s article, “Antichrist’s Illegal Alien Assault on America”, By Steven T. Matthews, on the papal office’s strategy against national identities holding out against Rome’s agenda, and it appeared this is most feasible, and alarming — As the papacy is not at all diminished in its power!

Any thoughts on this?

Steve, the article makes a point of lamenting the American Presbyterian omission of the confessional statement, and gives some anecdotal evidence that this has led to openness towards the papacy. It also makes some interesting remarks on Papal support for immigration in communist terms. No doubt this is disastrous for the USA and all free countries in the world. But one would have to suppose that the USA has a centrist role in the fulfilment of biblical prophecy to think that this points out the antichrist.

I think a book like Wylie's demonstration establishes the confessional claim on a Scriptural basis, which is a more solid and substantial way of examining the subject.

On Rev. 17-18, we will need the help of the preterists to understand the idealist message. Consider what Milligan says,

"Now there was one scene of the past—how well does he remember it, for he was present at the time!—when the Roman power and a degenerate Judaism, the beast and the harlot of the day, combined to make war upon the Lamb. For a moment they seemed to succeed, yet only for a moment. They nailed the Lamb to the cross; but the Lamb overcame them, and rose in triumph from the grave. But the Seer did not pause there. He looked a few more years onward, and what did he next behold? That wicked partnership was dissolved. These companions in crime had turned round upon one another. The harlot had counselled the beast, and the beast had given the harlot power, to execute the darkest deed which had stained the pages of human history. But the alliance did not last. The alienation of the two from each other, restrained for a little by co-operation in common crime, burst forth afresh, and deepened with each passing year, until it ended in the march of the Roman armies into Palestine, their investment of the Jewish capital, and that sack and burning of the city which still remain the most awful spectacle of bloodshed and of ruin that the world has seen. Even this is not all. St. John looks still further into the future, and the tragedy is repeated in the darker deeds of the last "hour." There will again be a "beast" in the brute power of the ten kings of the world, and a harlot in a degenerate Jerusalem, animating and controlling it. The two will again direct their united energies against the true Church of Christ, the "called, and chosen, and faithful." They may succeed; it will be only for a moment. Again the Lamb will overcome them; and in the hour of defeat the sinful league between them will be broken, and the world-power will hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her utterly with fire."

Milligan has captured the historical background but then falls short at the point of application. He interprets the beast as the spirit of the world and the woman as the spirit of false religion. This is too general, and does not bring out the covenantal whoredom involved in the crucifixion of Christ. When we allow the historical narrative to inform our idealism we see there is a dynamic picture here of what would emerge in the Christian church (what already began to manifest itself in some of the churches of Asia). The Jewish antichrist has its counterpart in a corrupt Christian antichrist. And it is at this point we are bound, as Protestants, to see the papacy in its true, spiritual, covenantal character.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Please let me know you thoughts on this.

I thought you only wanted to discuss this subject further in the other thread on this topic....

Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 refer to 70 AD or the second coming?

I believe Paul, in what we refer to as the first few chapters of II Thessalonians, is speaking of that final day of the Lord and Paul is teaching that it shall not come until there be a departure from the faith, and the Antichrist be fully exposed and destroyed. The context is that the Thessalonians were, at the time of writing, being persecuted, therefore Paul's purpose was to exhort them to constancy.

Why?

As I mentioned earlier:
The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is 70 AD. Think about how odd 2 Thessalonians 2:2 would be if you try to apply it to the eschaton: "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come"
Did the Thessalonians actually think second coming and the "end of the world" had already come and they missed it?

Why would the Greeks at Thessalonica be concerned of rumors that the Jews in Jerusalem had already been judged (yes, I do believe that sometimes "the day of the Lord" refers at times in Scripture to the judgment of the nation of Israel)? Within the context of II Thessalonians (2.2-3), it seems they had received a letter purportedly from Paul or the Apostles telling them they had received false teaching (we have many references in the epistles where the Apostles have to respond to false things that the Church had heard), perhaps, it would seem, telling them the final day of the Lord had come or that the resurrection had already occurred - perhaps it was something similar to a dispensational premillennial rapture or a similar twisting of what Paul had written them earlier in I Thessalonians 4.17.

The destruction of Jerusalem was imminent - Christ had already taught this (Matthew 24.34) and yet Paul tells the Thessalonians in II.2.2 "be not suddenly moved from your mind... as though the day of Christ were at hand"(I do not believe the translation you are using "to the effect that the day of the Lord has come" is the best rendering of the Greek - I'll defer to others more knowledgeable of Biblical Greek). So whatever he is talking about was not imminent ("at hand") - within that generation.

The new temple is simultaneously defined as Christ Himself (Mark 14:58), believers individually (1 Corinthians 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Corinthians 6:16).

1 Peter 2:4-5
"As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

How can the antichrist be "in the sight of God chosen and precious"?

Again, this is the fallacy involved when doing a word search in Scripture and assuming they all mean the same despite the differing contexts. The Mark 14:58 and 1 Corinthians 6:19 passages refer to physical bodies. Only 2 Corinthians 6:16 uses the phrase "temple of God," a phrase which I agree refers to the Church. 1 Peter 2:4-5 is referring to the invisible Church ("chosen of God"). So, of course, the Antichrist is not chosen of God and precious. But, again, it has been the consistent view of the Church, especially the Reformed writers, that the Antichrist will arise from within the visible Church.

I hope I've answered your questions. I probably won't answer any more until you respond in kind as I have asked you several questions in #33 above that you have not yet responded to. But I feel like our back-and-forth is probably not all that helpful to the OP.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Calvin and friends,

Just to reiterate, I'm trying to keep this discussion within a narrow range of topics: from where does the man of sin — aka the Antichrist — arise? From Rome, i.e., the papal office, or could it be from elsewhere? And what does the papal endeavor — as per the Trinity Foundation article in the OP — portend, what with its sacralizing massive population transfers such that both Europe's (except for Hungary at this point) and the U.S.'s self-governance and economies are profoundly weakened as a result?

Could Rome's undermining of such nations' national identities and governance be coopted by another political-spiritual-ideological entity, the papal office (and its popes) being sidelined? What could possibly do that? I doubt Islamic, though don't rule out communism.

I'm requesting that general eschatological topics not be promoted or argued, but staying with the above-mentioned topics, or those closely related. Thank you!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for the quote from Wm. Milligan's, Book of Revelation, p 158.

(Is he departing from his "consistent" Idealist view?)

At any rate, he says (evidently commenting on Rev 17:12-18),

There will again be a "beast" in the brute power of the ten kings of the world, and a harlot in a degenerate Jerusalem, animating and controlling it. The two will again direct their united energies against the true Church of Christ, the "called, and chosen, and faithful." They may succeed; it will be only for a moment. Again the Lamb will overcome them; and in the hour of defeat the sinful league between them will be broken, and the world-power will hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, and burn her utterly with fire.​

Matters I have pondered before:

"their united energies [the beast and the harlot] against the true Church of Christ, the 'called, and chosen, and faithful.' They may succeed; it will be only for a moment". What would this look like — what would it entail?

And the following "world-power" of the ten kings — [a coalition of many nations], the "beast" of the end of the age — will turn against the harlot, and utterly destroy her.

Are these sequential, as in the order seen in Rev 17?

What would this look like? If the harlot is the apostate church (degenerate Jerusalem), her destruction would be what?

I know these are but symbolic appellations / images, but what would be their realities?

 

[MW]

Steve, I don't think he was departing from a consistent view. Only I would like to see a more consistent use of the historic significance of "Jerusalem which now is" in forming the "ideal."

I don't equate the beast with the end of the age. In New Testament eschatology the last times are an inaugurated reality.

Idealism, in my opinion, means that we are not dealing with sequential events but a state of affairs that exists in covenantal terms. Our natural desire is to want to link them to something specific and concrete that we see in the world around us. It is just here that the preterist view falls down because it is focused on events. Historicists go down the same road. Meanwhile the visions are contorted to fit into a sequential schema.

I think we can "apply" the ideal in time without falling into the sequential trap. We see these covenantal realities at work in our world. That does not mean we have to see them play out chronologically as they are presented in Revelation. In this way I can see the papacy with its lust for dominance (Nicolaitanism), fornication with the nations (Jezebelism), and selling of the truth (Balaamism) as a historic manifestation of the covenantal reality described in Revelation.

As for its destruction, that seems to me to be inevitable. We have already seen the kings of the earth turning against her. Will there be a revival of the image? That is possible. Will it be in the same form? I cannot be sure. What I do know is that there is a glorious time coming when Christ will slay the beast and the false prophet and the kingdoms of this world will be Christ's in accord with His mediatorial charge and commission, Ps. 2:8-9.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Matthew, for your thoughts.

My only reference to "sequential events" was in saying that Rev 17:14KJV "These [the beast and his coalition] shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them" was not to be thought an event previous to Rev 17:16KJV, "And the ten horns [coalition of nations] which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire". It was, rather, looking ahead — that after their destroying Babylon they would in turn be destroyed by the Lamb. It was a literary (proleptic) device by John.

I agree with your view that we are not to look at Revelation's symbols as sequential, but — mostly — recapitulating spiritual dynamics. Where I differ with the consistent Idealist view is that I am a "modified" or "eclectic" Idealist (per Greg Beale), allowing a very few historical events prophetically declared, and seen in hindsight.

For instance, in Rev 9:15, "And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men" indicated a "time stamp" (a number of amil commentators concurring) as regards the 6th trumpet woe: a furthering of the 5th trumpet's woe of a massive deception clouding the collective consciousness of all those "who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads" — the unregenerate of the world — and who are plunged into psychological-spiritual torment and despair. I write about this a lot, the "time stamp", and the actual event involved — which I maintain, and defend — is the little seen but seismic event of the Woodstock era and its "recreational sorcery": the use of the psychedelic / entheogen agents which allow the opening of the demonic realm to the human collective consciousness.

Although the commentators do allow such a time stamp granting an historic event, they, none of them, venture what that might be!

More was going on in the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s than anyone imagined — occult happenings that would impact “the spirit of the age” come the 21st century like pounding blows on the body and soul of humankind.

You have said, Matthew — in earlier conversations — that I am an historicist for taking this eclectic stance, but I refute that allegation, which is not accurate, as an eclectic Idealist is in no way an historicist!

At any rate, I defend my views exegetically and with regard to the OT and NT use of sorcery / φαρμακεία in Scripture.

It is accepted that the “eclectic” or “modified idealist” view (Beale)1 allows some departure from the idealist, though as to where the line is drawn there is no clear consensus. Beale himself says, “...certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past present and future.” 2

1 G.K. Beale, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation (Eerdmans 1999), pp 48, 49.
2 Ibid., p 49.

One of the well-recognized flaws of the consistent Idealist view — at least in the eyes of many — is that it has no grounding in the New Testament age itself, i.e., is all abstract and symbolic and devoid of any real prophetic relevance, as we are used to thinking of prophecy.

I don't wish to debate this afresh — we have done this thoroughly in the past.

What I desire to understand is, a) if Rome and its papal office is not the Antichrist / man of sin spoken of, who or what could it be? And b) what sort of coalition might be formed against Babylon to destroy it? What alternatives to Rome are there for such an undertaking?

 

[MW]

I don't wish to debate this afresh — we have done this thoroughly in the past.

OK. I will leave it there then. Thanks, Steve.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Matthew!

As I said in post 20,

Cornelis P. Venema's, The Promise of the Future, which replaced Hoekema's work as the Reformed seminaries' eschatology textbook, has this to say,

Because this figure [Antichrist / man of lawlessness] arises within the orbit of the temple or church, many of the Reformers, including Calvin, identified the man of lawlessness or the Antichrist with the institution of the papacy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), for example, originally spoke of the pope as the Antichrist (XXV.6). This is not, however, the confessional position of the Reformed churches. Most Presbyterian denominations that subscribe to the Westminster standards have removed the reference to the pope as the Antichrist from these standards. [emphasis added -SMR] p. 168, fn 2​

I do not mean to play the two confessional positions against one another — for they both are excellent — but they both cannot be right. And the strong majority of sound Reformed churches do hold to the WCF which removes the pope as "the" Antichrist, so it can be said this is the confessional position.

Hoekema also, in post 20, entertains the possibility of a setting in which the antichrist / man of sin could arise other than the professing church.

Just as, years ago, I tried to envision how the destruction of Babylon could be effected without destroying the whole world (it would be its HQ nation and not the entire Babylonian system of the world against God and His people), such pondering was fruitful. That is why I look for other possibilities as regards the man of sin, and his platform of operation besides the professing church. I'm not saying it is not the professing church, but just looking elsewhere also.

 

[CGS]

And what does the papal endeavor — as per the Trinity Foundation article in the OP — portend, what with its sacralizing massive population transfers such that both Europe's (except for Hungary at this point) and the U.S.'s self-governance and economies are profoundly weakened as a result?

Hey, Steve (or anyone else who wants to answer) - I read the article. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the claims in the article are true, do you think that part of the papal strategy is to infiltrate the US government (and the governments of other nations) with Roman Catholics so that they will do the Antichrist's bidding? For example, just off the top of my head...Joe Biden is RC (or at least claims to be), J.D. Vance is RC, some of the supreme court justices are RC, and I'm sure that there are many others in Congress, federal agencies, etc. What, if anything, are we to make of this?

I guess a way to frame the question more generally would be...if the pope (or the office of the pope) is the Antichrist, does this Satanic power/influence/strategy necessarily "trickle down" through and permeate the entire RC hierarchy of cardinals, bishops, priests and even on down to the laity? If the pope is the Antichrist, what does this mean for individual RCs and the RCC as a whole?

I realize that we would view most RCs as lost and still in the kingdom of darkness, and in need of the light of the true gospel. I also realize that we would not view the RCC as a true church. But do we also need to view them/it as somehow in the service of the Antichrist and actively helping him promote his evil agenda? Or can/should we separate our belief that the pope is the Antichrist from how we view RC politicians and our RC neighbors, co-workers, etc.?

I hope these questions make sense...

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Good questions, Charles.

My thinking at this point is that many traditional Roman Catholics, who have high moral standards, and a sound Christology — albeit overlaid with so much falsity — will recoil when the antichrist / man of sin reveals his true nature, and flee from him and the system that surrounds him.

It may well be that the workings of the papal office as depicted in the article — ruining the nationhood and independence of sovereign states — will serve another agenda than Rome's. Rome being a "useful idiot" sort of thing, or possibly an ally of sorts. I note that the article will continue in a part II shortly. It bears watching.

A lot of significance adheres to what exactly is the "harlot Babylon": "And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns [has dominion] over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18). Will the RCC ever have dominion over the kings and rulers of the earth, militarily, financially, culturally? So as to decree murder, rape, and plunder of all Biblical Christians globally?

And what of the destruction of Babylon, as seen, fleetingly in Rev 17, and more fully in Rev 18? Will the coalition of nations destroy itself, for Babylon is known in Scripture as the entire world system — militarily, financially, culturally, politically, trade-wise — in opposition to God and His people. Or if that which is destroyed is but a headquarters nation, which nation could it be? There are so many threads of information and connection — in Scripture — that need to be tied together to weave a coherent, beautiful tapestry.

There is nothing wrong in brainstorming so as to discern the teachings of Scripture. The elders of old used to sit in the gates of the cities and discuss the words of the prophets. We don't have that nowadays in our fragmented societies, but we have PuritanBoard, where the elders and learners among the citizens of New Jerusalem gather in our own "gates" to toss these things about.

It is a rare thing, this digital place! Thank you to those who make it possible, and keep it orderly.

 

[Sam Jer]

Will the RCC ever have dominion over the kings and rulers of the earth, militarily, financially, culturally? So as to decree murder, rape, and plunder of all Biblical Christians globally?

Hasn't this already happened?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Yes, Efraim, on a more local scale, but not "all Biblical Christians globally". It may well be an entity other than the RCC that executes that horrific plan (and used by the LORD as a purifying furnace, even as He did on the smaller-scale atrocities).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I want to keep this thread open for now.

 

[cthorn14]

Hodge makes some interesting arguments defending the traditional view in his Systematic Theology, vol. 3. Available at: https://www.monergism.com/antichrist

His coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders. This is not the way in which worldly potentates gain their power; they rely on force. But this is the way, as though traced by the pen of history rather than by the pencil of prophecy, in which the papacy has attained and maintained its fearful ascendancy in the world. Its power has been achieved mainly by fraud, "by the deceivableness of unrighteousness;" by forged documents and false pretencee, by claiming that Peter was made primate over the whole Church and the vicar or plenipotentiary of Christ on earth; that he was the bishop of Rome; that his successors in that office were his successors in that primacy; and that as the vicar of Christ he was superior to all earthly potentates, not merely as the spiritual is above the temporal, but as lord of the conscience, authorized to decide what was right and what was wrong for them to do in all their relations as men and as rulers; which is a claim of absolute dominion.

This, however, is a small matter so far as it concerns the things of this world. It was to the mass of the people of little moment whether their absolute sovereign was a bishop or a prince; whether he resided at Rome or in Paris, whether his authority extended over one nation or over all nations. It is the false claim of the papacy to have supreme authority over the faith of men, to decide for them what they must believe on the pain of eternal perdition, that is the most fearful power ever assumed by sinful men.

To this is to be added the false claim to the power to forgive sin. This is, as we have seen, a twofold power, answering to the twofold penalty attached to sin, namely, the eternal penalty as a violation of the divine law, and the penances still due after the remission of the eternal penalty, as satisfactions to divine justice. The former can be obtained only through the intervention or absolution of the priest; and the latter can be imposed or remitted at the discretion of the Church. This includes power over purgatory, the pains of which are represented as frightful and of indefinite duration. These pains the pope and his subordinates falsely claim the power to alleviate or remit. These claims have no parallel in the history of the world. If such pretensions as these do not constitute the power which makes them Antichrist, then nothing more remains. Any future antichrist that may arise must be a small affair compared to the papacy.

 

[Rom]

I have not listened to this, but Rev. Gavin Beers (FCC) was interviewed by Rev. Aldo Leon (PCA) on the topic of "The Pope Is That Antichrist" for the Kingdom Polemics podcast. Thought it might be of some interest for this thread.

The Pope Is That Antichrist - YouTube

 

[Reformed 78]

I might read the paper and have thoughts on it later, but I did want to quickly post the following, which is helpful:

I think one of the keys is to recognize that the greatest enemy of the church is not persecution or world leaders per se, but a spiritual enemy: one who keeps people close to gospel light while in chains of darkness.

Thanks for posting this!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

From, THE MAN OF SIN: Uncovering The Truth About The Antichrist, by Kim Riddlebarger

Chapter 8, section “The Man of Lawlessness: A Rebuilt Temple of the Church? Is He the Pope?”, pp. 171-172

According to Paul (2 Thess. 2:1–12), the day of the Lord had not already come (as some feared) because two things had not yet occurred—a great apostasy and the revelation of the Man of Lawlessness. Even though Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians before AD 70 (AD 50–51), he is probably not referring to the events of AD 70 but to the time of the end (v. 8). The spirit of lawlessness (anomia) was already present when Paul wrote his letter, but it was presently being restrained (v. 7). This restraint probably refers to the preaching of the gospel and is Paul’s description of what John refers to in Revelation 20:1–10 as Satan being “bound.”

When the apostasy does occur, the revelation of the Man of Lawlessness is at hand (2 Thess. 2:3–8). These are concomitant events. The revelation of the one (the Man of Lawlessness) is connected to the other (the apostasy). Paul also connects the revelation of the Man of Lawlessness to the day of judgment at the second advent (vv. 8–10). This evil man is revealed so that he (and those who follow him) will be judged, bringing history to its final culmination.

When Paul refers to the Man of Sin sitting in the temple, he’s referring to the church on earth when the apostasy occurs and when the Man of Lawlessness is revealed—not to the Jerusalem temple in either AD 70 (contra preterism) nor to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at the time of the end (contra futurists—including the church fathers, dispensationalists, and historic premillenarians).

Paul’s reference to the Man of Lawlessness does not refer to the papacy, since Paul is not referring to a series of individuals who may come and go (an institution) but to a particular individual who is destroyed by Christ at his second advent.3 That being said, Berkhof is correct when he speaks of “elements of Antichrist in the papacy.”4 The papacy has, at times, manifested characteristics like those described by Paul. The union of pope and prince in the sixteenth century intent upon destroying the Reformed churches may serve as a type of what the end-times revelation of the Man of Lawlessness and his blasphemous behavior will be like.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Paul’s reference to the Man of Lawlessness does not refer to the papacy... That being said, Berkhof is correct when he speaks of “elements of Antichrist in the papacy.” The papacy has, at times, manifested characteristics like those described by Paul.

Could it be both? That is, the papacy, fostering the spirit of antiChrist throughout the ages, finally culminates with a final "Pope" who is the Man of Lawlessness.

 

[MW]

Could it be both?

I don't think so, and yet there is a dual application. The Jews apostatised from the faith of Messiah to come, the Jewish high priest literally sits in the temple of God, and both were destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming to judgment. It is the Pope who demonstrates the characteristics of the Jewish apostacy and high priest in the Christian church, the New Testament temple. We only have the two dispensations, and so there is only room for the two manifestations.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In post 49, where Charles (@cthorn14 ), quoting Hodge, says "Any future antichrist that may arise must be a small affair compared to the papacy." (p. 816 in Hodge vol 3 — italics not in original). It no doubt looked that way to Hodge in 1873 when his three-volume set was printed. But the world has changed, and so has the papacy. It still has its great influence, but is no longer "that great city, which reigns over [has dominion over] the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18 KJV). Another, greater Babylon will come into power.

The papacy's influence now is in its subtlety and the deceitful exercise of its false pretensions to holiness and care (of disadvantaged peoples). As per the OP it ruins sovereign nations, affecting their economies and self-governance through its "holy" approval and sanction of giving shelter and aid to the millions upon millions of the world's "refugees". (Its allies — elite progressives — on the same page, all under a "strong delusion" that they are doing "good" for benighted humankind.)

Europe is ruined, as is the United States, and many other sovereign nations groan under the burden of wildly excessive immigration. The groundwork — the foundation — is being laid for a more global super-power, something that will make the papacy of ages past truly seem but "a small affair".

The disinformation, "hate-speech", and anti-LGBTQ+ censorship machine will eventually be such that the Gospel is silenced, for Gospel proclamation is at the heart of free speech — by which it is "mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:4-5 KJV).

It is said, with its constant harping on sin, repentance, forgiveness, and judgment, it — the Gospel, with its primitive spirituality and trampling on the dignity and rights of the sacred LGBTQ+ community — must not be allowed to "poison" the minds of the enlightened age being born .

When the Gospel is silenced, dark voices will arise, with power.

More "brief quotes" from Riddlebarger's Man of Sin to come shortly.

 

[cthorn14]

In post 49, where Charles (@cthorn14 ), quoting Hodge, says "Any future antichrist that may arise must be a small affair compared to the papacy." (p. 816 in Hodge vol 3 — italics not in original).

Sorry, I should have added that the emphasis was mine.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I will with some trepidation mention that the historicist postmillennial view, held by many of the Reformers and Westminster divines, widely held in the FCC, and seemingly spreading in other Reformed circles, makes sense of that man of sin’s current state by showing how the Scriptures both foresee the rise of Rome and also foretell the crushing blow dealt to it by the Reformation. So we see the papacy now in its more limited manifestation. It is still wicked and powerful and as Steve mentioned in another thread, taking a leading role for example in the global movement to crush the church of Jesus Christ through mass immigration and other choking policies. Fraternizing with heads of state, Muslim leaders, etc. on this.

Somewhere in these threads a couple of videos of Gavin Beers talking about the Pope as that man of sin were posted. I can find and post here a bit later if anyone is interested, or maybe someone else can do so. I think he touches on the historicist aspect. There are other resources on the historicist position that may be of interest as well.

I think the historicist position should be at least on the table, especially for those who still hold that the papacy is the man of sin and that antichrist. It explains much and has the endorsement of some wise and godly fathers from our past.

 

[cthorn14]

There are other resources on the historicist position that may be of interest as well.

I think this lecture by Rev. Macleod of FCC is interesting. He blends the idealist and historicist positions somewhat, modifying William Hendriksen.

John Knox Institute of Higher Education

 

[Sam Jer]

I will with some trepidation mention that the historicist postmillennial view, held by many of the Reformers and Westminster divines, widely held in the FCC, and seemingly spreading in other Reformed circles, makes sense of that man of sin’s current state by showing how the Scriptures both foresee the rise of Rome and also foretell the crushing blow dealt to it by the Reformation. So we see the papacy now in its more limited manifestation. It is still wicked and powerful and as Steve mentioned in another thread, taking a leading role for example in the global movement to crush the church of Jesus Christ through mass immigration and other choking policies. Fraternizing with heads of state, Muslim leaders, etc. on this.

Somewhere in these threads a couple of videos of Gavin Beers talking about the Pope as that man of sin were posted. I can find and post here a bit later if anyone is interested, or maybe someone else can do so. I think he touches on the historicist aspect. There are other resources on the historicist position that may be of interest as well.

I think the historicist position should be at least on the table, especially for those who still hold that the papacy is the man of sin and that antichrist. It explains much and has the endorsement of some wise and godly fathers from our past.

(Edits: order of videos, spaces between links)

 

[St. Gerdt]

But the world has changed, and so has the papacy. It still has its great influence, but is no longer "that great city, which reigns over [has dominion over] the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18 KJV). Another, greater Babylon will come into power.

I remember listening to a group conversation involving Rev. Beers at the FCC family conference last year, after Rev. Beers' address (linked many times above), where this particular aspect of papal power was being discussed. Rev. Beers made the comment that the popes recently (in 1964) stopped wearing the tiara and using it in public ceremonies, but it is still there - waiting to be picked up again at the right time.

I find it grievous that much of the christian nationalism rhetoric recently - even within "reformed" circles - is so welcoming to the RCs and their globalist agendas, as if the enemy of our enemy is our friend. It is also not surprising to see this political fervor cited as a source of persuasion for many to return to some form of eastern orthodoxy or romanism.