Do You Believe the Papacy to be Anti-Christ?

[~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.

[Mickey]

The pope is Anti-Christ but, I do not think he is THE Anti-Christ. Obama is THE Anti-Christ...just kidding...Pelosi is...no...Bush?...ehh they're all Anti-Christ.

Seriously though, I don't think just one man will fit the bill as the "man of lawlessness", certainly many will fit it and many have.

[~JM~]

Do you believe the Antichrist will come from the office of the Pope?

[Mickey]

I believe The Anti-Christ is and has been present since the 1st century and is not any one person at a time.

In other words The Anti-Christ and an Anti-Christ are one in the same. John wrote of the Anti-Christ as already present and he also wrote of many Anti-Christs. People have tried to figure out since John wrote about the Anti-Christ who it is, and there have been different opinions ever since (which is stating the obvious I know). The papacy IMO is no more evil and Anti-Christ than a Fundamental Independent Baptist Preacher (just one example), it's just that the Papacy has much more power over the consciences of men in terms of numbers. The Baptist Pastor binds the consciences of men just as much, it's just that his 'power' is limited to his congregation and maybe if he's got his own radio or tv show, those who tune in and drink his kool-aid.

[gerhard]

When the Pope sits "in the chair of St. Peter" in the temple of God, he sets himself above God (doctrine of infallibility). Some Baptist preachers do claim god-like powers; however, they are usually standing.

[Saint Nicholas]

For the record. Satan himself is the one and only "Ultimate Antichrist" All reprobate men and devils are his servants and therefore "antichrists" plural. Satan's chief representative, and power/seat of authority however,is whoever (which man) sits on the throne in Rome and is most embraced by the world of reprobates.

All who love, embrace, have unity, and acknowledge this Roman (Ceaser) man as a man of God, are deceived by the Satan and therefore still unregenerate and possibly repbrobate also.

What other Christian man/office has claimed to be like the most high God, and also the head of the Body of Christ? What other world religion has had so much authority over kings, queens, and empires of this world, in the past and even to this very day? What other men who have died had so many of the worlds populace (millions) and it's political leaders (thousands) flock by their (Ceasers and Popes) dead corpse in the vatican?

Who is the most exalted and widely publicized religious man in the world? What office and man do most all religious leaders (including christian) embrace as a most holy peacemaking man? The answers are obvious.

Satan has always had his chief leaders in this world since post Eden. Unless the Papacy is destroyed, and another worldwide christian sect replaces it's world dominance, (I doubt that will ever take place untill Christ comes) I solemnly believe the Papal see of Rome to be the very seat and center of Satan's visible authority.

Nicholas

[lionovjudah]

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.

Does not the PCA allow an exception for this section for a Pastor?

[doctr_of_grace]

IMHO .... Considering that there was Rome and Rome to contend against in the 1600's I believe that most confessions written in that time period were directly addressing Rome. I think that John Calvin for instance had a strong dislike for the papacy. Because Rome was also politically powerful it was a big machine to go up against. Glory to God that the reformers were what they were.

[doctr_of_grace]

I believe The Anti-Christ is and has been present since the 1st century and is not any one person at a time.

In other words The Anti-Christ and an Anti-Christ are one in the same. John wrote of the Anti-Christ as already present and he also wrote of many Anti-Christs. People have tried to figure out since John wrote about the Anti-Christ who it is, and there have been different opinions ever since (which is stating the obvious I know). The papacy IMO is no more evil and Anti-Christ than a Fundamental Independent Baptist Preacher (just one example), it's just that the Papacy has much more power over the consciences of men in terms of numbers. The Baptist Pastor binds the consciences of men just as much, it's just that his 'power' is limited to his congregation and maybe if he's got his own radio or tv show, those who tune in and drink his kool-aid.

I like this !!! thanks Mickey

[wildboar]

The PCA actually deleted the term "antichrist." It now reads

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.

The Roman church is still antichrist insofar as they still fit the Biblical description about what the Antichrist will do. The problem I have is when the Roman church is the worst possible thing anyone could ever imagine or act as if other groups are not anti-christ as well. In American religion many groups are even more antichrist than the Roman Church is.

[Robert R. Higby]

The confessions are quoting from both Dan. 7:7-11, 19-26 and Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3-12 to describe the 'antichrist' as affirmed.

As many of you probably know, I subscribe to the historicist view of the fulfillment of these passages but do not limit the man of sin to the papacy only. The papacy is the most obvious fulfillment, so in that regard I agree with Westminster. But the focus of biblical prophecy is simply this: the GREAT APOSTASY away from the gospel = the antichrist as personified in ALL of the leaders of the apostasy, as prophesied by Paul. This apostasy was already at work while Paul was still alive (in apostate Judaism trying to synthesize itself with the Christian movement) and came to full fruition after his death in the immediate ascendancy of the false teachers lurking in the NT assemblies to power. This has continued for the last 19+ centuries and is what John refered to as 'antichrist' already realized. The ONE man of sin is fulfilled historically in the MANY.

The false prophet (antichrist of Dan. 7, 2 Thess. 2, and Revelation 13-20) will not be destroyed until the final advent of Jesus Christ. He will continue his activity until then, though his ability to persecute will be cut short prior to the second advent (Rev. 17, 18; Christ stated in Mt. 24 that for the sake of the elect the days of persecution will be shortened).

[Mickey]

This apostasy was already at work while Paul was still alive (in apostate Judaism trying to synthesize itself with the Christian movement) and came to full fruition after his death in the immediate ascendancy of the false teachers lurking in the NT assemblies to power. This has continued for the last 19+ centuries and is what John refered to as 'antichrist' already realized. The ONE man of sin is fulfilled historically in the MANY.

The first written document from the Anti-Christ came from Jerusalem (See Acts 15). The fact that there was lengthy debate amongst the elders and apostles on whether Gentiles should be circumcised in order to be saved shows the Anti-Christ was alive and well in the Jerusalem hierarchy. James' attempt to "only burden the gentiles a little" with observance to dietary laws is a glimpse into the larger problem the elders and apostles were dealing with.

I believe it is this that Paul saw and railed against several times, even though later he compromised, contradicting what he was teaching the gentiles.

[jonnycool]

Glory to God that the reformers were what they were.

We have a lot to live up to.

In American religion many groups are even more antichrist than the Roman Church is.

That might be so but we can trump that, we have the ArchDruid of Canterbury, but where is their power? In Rome.

The great apostasy is free will.

john.

[Robert R. Higby]

Mike: I believe it is this that Paul saw and railed against several times, even though later he compromised, contradicting what he was teaching the gentiles.

Some scholars believe that Paul's 'compromise' was based on the law against the eating of blood in Gen. 9. This is one of what are termed the 'Noahchide' laws.

Since the laws outlined in Gen. 9 are universal in scope and are not limited in any sense to the covenant with Israel, it is easy to see why Paul could make this compromise.

Nonetheless, the 'party of James' was a historical fact as documented by Paul and it was against the apostolic testimony of the gospel in every way. To claim that James the half-brother of Jesus (in his theology) had absolutely nothing to do with this anti-gospel party is so contrary to what Paul states in Gal. 1 that such a claim warrants absolutely no consideration by any person who loves the gospel of pure grace supremely.

[doctr_of_grace]

Mike: I believe it is this that Paul saw and railed against several times, even though later he compromised, contradicting what he was teaching the gentiles.

Some scholars believe that Paul's 'compromise' was based on the law against the eating of blood in Gen. 9. This is one of what are termed the 'Noahchide' laws.

Since the laws outlined in Gen. 9 are universal in scope and are not limited in any sense to the covenant with Israel, it is easy to see why Paul could make this compromise.

Nonetheless, the 'party of James' was a historical fact as documented by Paul and it was against the apostolic testimony of the gospel in every way. To claim that James the half-brother of Jesus (in his theology) had absolutely nothing to do with this anti-gospel party is so contrary to what Paul states in Gal. 1 that such a claim warrants absolutely no consideration by any person who loves the gospel of pure grace supremely.

So God allowing the James letter into the canon was a mistake? I am not sure I am understanding the "James debate" other than some have stated they don't consider it to part of the canon. Well it appears it is part of the "canon" and God being Supreme ruler has made it that way has he not?

Wow this has me thinking ... James definately contradicts Paul and now it seems Paul contradicts himself. Sorry to interrupt but this is pretty much a big issue.

THANKS for indulging me ... Jan

[jonnycool]

Well it appears it is part of the "canon" and God being Supreme ruler has made it that way has he not?

Yes He has. Every word of God is flawless. The bible is 'as is' from God for us Jan.

It becomes a thing when we listen to leaders.

john.

[GraceAmbassador]

So God allowing the James letter into the canon was a mistake? I am not sure I am understanding the "James debate" other than some have stated they don't consider it to part of the canon. Well it appears it is part of the "canon" and God being Supreme ruler has made it that way has he not?

Wow this has me thinking ... James definately contradicts Paul and now it seems Paul contradicts himself. Sorry to interrupt but this is pretty much a big issue.

THANKS for indulging me ... Jan

I REALLY don't want to get into the discussion of James lest I request that someone proves to me without shadow of doubt that GOD was the one who decided in the 66 books canon and that believing it is essential to salvation. What I want to say is that the word "contradicts" himself here is a unintentional misuse of the word. Paul adapted his ministry to every situation possible because, above all, although many will deny, PAUL WAS AN EVANGELIST. Even after he hammered the dependence on, and proud outward display of legalism, he declared to "be all things to all men... to win some..."

In addition, as we have discussed here many times, in Acts they were all still under the law and very much under the costumes of the Jewish Synagogue. So, everything that was said in there was for THAT PERIOD.

Now, if you don't know me and, because of what I just wrote, you call me a DISPENSATIONALIST, I will tell you that your mother is NOT A MAN!
I am not a dispensationalist just as much as the Apostle Paul is not one for using expressions such as "fullness of time" "administration of times", "in times past, in ages to come" and "but now".

Paul did not contradicted himself anymore than the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there were killings of animals as sacrifice; that is no longer taught in the New Testament by the same people who followed the religion of killing animals as a sacrifice.

Paul says that he is content with EVERYTHING and in EVERY SITUATION, and that He can do ALL THINGS through Christ which strengthened him. Note that he said that while he was IN JAIL! However, there is a scripture in 2 Tim 4 that he appears to be whining, not as a man who is content with everything and in every situation while, again, IN JAIL. Is he contradicting himself? I could give more examples but I think this is enough for now.

Moderators, I know you will tell me that I am off the subject and suggest me to start a thread: "Did Paul contradict himself, ever?". Well, thanks, but no thanks.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Jan: So God allowing the James letter into the canon was a mistake? I am not sure I am understanding the "James debate" other than some have stated they don't consider it to part of the canon. Well it appears it is part of the "canon" and God being Supreme ruler has made it that way has he not?

Johnnycool: Yes He has. Every word of God is flawless. The bible is 'as is' from God for us Jan.

I must ask both of you to stop the one-liner pejorative stabs as these are not appropriate. You cannot score-points here on p-net by advancing dogma by clever snippets without proper debate and exchange. We will not allow it, trust me!

[GraceAmbassador]

Jan: So God allowing the James letter into the canon was a mistake? I am not sure I am understanding the "James debate" other than some have stated they don't consider it to part of the canon. Well it appears it is part of the "canon" and God being Supreme ruler has made it that way has he not?

Johnnycool: Yes He has. Every word of God is flawless. The bible is 'as is' from God for us Jan.

I must ask both of you to stop the one-liner pejorative stabs as these are not appropriate. You cannot score-points here on p-net by advancing dogma by clever snippets without proper debate and exchange. We will not allow it, trust me!

Thanks Bob!

It is not "cool" Johnny, just to say things just as your phrase above without any support other than a "forced" truth. By forced truth I mean a "truth said only as a trampoline to jump to something that it is not truth". God's words are flawless, but you cannot PROVE that He chose the 66 Canonical books anymore that you can't prove that He endorses the synergy of faith and works, the statement that God does not tempt anyone, the teaching of last rites, that we should confess our sins to other men, that praying for the sick can save, last rites and the omission of Christological, or Christocentric theology, all found (including said omission) in the book of James.

I know Jan and I know her heart and I know what she means; but your phrase above is not funny, is not theological, and it is an imposition. It is also provocative, being a "one liner pejorative", as Bob asserts. It may not have been your intention, but this kind of religious imposition must be avoided. Can you back up your assertion that the Bible is "as is" from God? If you are referring to the 66 canon, please, give me a B.C.V. (book, chapter and verse) where we read something similar to this: Yea, behold, low, I shall give to you 66 books, which will be my word "as is", and you are not supposed to rationalize it, and, as a matter of fact, thou shalt not use your mind, and thou shall not think and thou shalt accept it as is. Have you not read the Apostolic Creed and the major Confessions? Have I not INSPIRED my servants to write that the Bible is my Word, and the 66 books comprise such a book?"

Unless you can show me something like that, or even remotely similar to that, do not say the Bible is "as is" and attribute it to God because you may be committing the sin of irreverence and putting words in God's mouth.

But then again, all of this is spoken in love...

Milt

[Highlyfavored]

Can you back up your assertion that the Bible is "as is" from God? If you are referring to the 66 canon, please, give me a B.C.V. (book, chapter and verse) where we read something similar to this: Yea, behold, low, I shall give to you 66 books, which will be my word "as is", and you are not supposed to rationalize it, and, as a matter of fact, thou shalt not use your mind, and thou shall not think and thou shalt accept it as is. Have you not read the Apostolic Creed and the major Confessions? Have I not INSPIRED my servants to write that the Bible is my Word, and the 66 books comprise such a book?"

Unless you can show me something like that, or even remotely similar to that, do not say the Bible is "as is" and attribute it to God because you may be committing the sin of irreverence and putting words in God's mouth.

Well said Milt.

I wish some of the folks here would read through the threads on the cannon and those on James, there is truly a wealth of information I doubt you could find in any library or anywhere else on the internet.