Do You Believe the Papacy to be Anti-Christ?

[Mickey]

The problem is (and I'm not accusing any individual here of this) people like to be spoon fed what to believe. I'll be the first to admit that it is much easier for me to find an individual or a group who I think knows what they are talking about and go with what they believe. I still do this because sometimes I'm lazy and fear men! There is so much history to wade through and the more you read the more cans of worms you open! It's endless!

We all in some form or fashion are guilty of letting the traditions of men determine our thinking and bind our conscience. All of us here saw this when we started the James and Canon threads years ago, we're about to see it happen again with Bryan's blogs.

[doctr_of_grace]

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!

I have ZERO desire to score points here Robert. I just want to understand what it is you are saying or claiming ... THANKS!

[doctr_of_grace]

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.

I will do so ... I sometimes have trouble with searching them out. Thanks and again I will try to read some of the material already posted.

[doctr_of_grace]

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

Thanks Milt and again my intention is to find out exactly what is believed by the P-net moderators and why they believe such and such a thing. I wasn't trying to be funny, rude or score any points. The fact that the canon has included the book of James and that it didn't include other letters would suggest that God has it as He wants it. Perhaps my question belongs to God himself and not P-net moderators. In fact I guess my question was directed to Robert specifically and I will try hard to delve through the years of discussions as time permits me to do so.

If Robert, Brandan or Nicholas want me off the network then do so. My goal in coming back was to learn and always has been. For whatever reason you guys are defensive with my posts and I am not sure how to understand or take that. I used to be a bit of a smart aleck back in the 2004 posts but since returning I have tried to not be. I have tried to word my questions and posts carefully so as to not offend. It was Robert that stated that James was an antichrist and I just wanted him to clarify that statement.

Its been refreshing to read some of your material again Milt. God Bless and carry on!!!

Out for now ... Jan

[Brandan Kraft]

Bob, Jan is a good friend of mine - I will vouch for her and I don't believe she meant anything inappropriate

Jan, please don't be offended if we may seem a little bit defensive. I would be happy to discuss any questions you have in private / e-mail.

[Robert R. Higby]

Jan, please quote my statement that James is an antichrist. You will find no such statement that I have ever made. This is not to conclude anything, it is just that I won't own up to any statements that are not my own.

I truly apologize for misunderstanding you, Jan.

The fact that the canon has included the book of James and that it didn't include other letters would suggest that God has it as He wants it.

From a purely historical perspective (starting with the 'official' list in the French Confession of 1559) this is true with regard to the 66-book canon that men affirm today, however, it does not establish in any manner what the scope of the Old and New Testaments of scripture actually are.

I have studied more recently the views of Calvin and he most definitely doubted privately the 66 book canon also (which is a revision of my prior position that he was the author and organizer of it as stated in the French Confession). I'm not sure that my former position is entirely inaccurate as Calvin may have supported publicly that which he doubted privately.

[Brandan Kraft]

I have studied more recently the views of Calvin and he most definitely doubted privately the 66 book canon also (which is a revision of my prior position that he was the author and organizer of it as stated in the French Confession).

Wow, where did you find that information? Thanks!

[doctr_of_grace]

Jan, please quote my statement that James is an antichrist. You will find no such statement that I have ever made. This is not to conclude anything, it is just that I won't own up to any statements that are not my own.

Robert I may have misunderstood your statements as well. Here is the quote that caused me to make the statement I did ...

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.

I suppose to say one is anti gospel is not the same as saying one is antichrist ... I read it to say you were saying James was part of the antichrist group that Paul was referring to. My mistake and I sincerely want to apologize for that.

I have studied more recently the views of Calvin and he most definitely doubted privately the 66 book canon also (which is a revision of my prior position that he was the author and organizer of it as stated in the French Confession). I'm not sure that my former position is entirely inaccurate as Calvin may have supported publicly that which he doubted privately.

I too find this very interesting and would love to discuss it sometime.

THANKS for your words and I look forward to more discussions.

Jan

[Forester07]

Jan,

The Library also has a few articles dealing with James. These are easier to read if you want a place to start without having to read some of the massive threads on James. I still recommend you read through the James thread because there is much good discussion there.

http://www.predestinarian.net/librar...?e=23&catid=11

http://www.predestinarian.net/librar...?e=45&catid=11

[wildboar]

I've read before (I don't remember the source) that Calvin doubted the canonicity of 2 and 3 John and Revelation.

[Robert R. Higby]

Yes, it was not a 'James' issue with Calvin but primarily an issue with Revelation--which he did not write a commentary on (nor on 2 and 3 John). I will get to the supporting evidence on this sometime when I have opportunity.

Jan, everything is good with what you have said--thanks! My thinking on James for a long time has been that he professed the truth (as documented in Acts 15) but was a compromiser. I do not believe he was a 'member' of what Paul refers to as the 'James party' in Gal. 2 but the men in the party claimed James as their leader and it is clear that James should have dismissed these men from his fellowship and recognition but did not. He was playing both sides of the fence and trying to fellowship with both light and darkness (in my view). But I would certainly have to reserve judgment on technically referring to him as an 'antichrist'.

--Bob

[Brandan Kraft]

Sounds like a modern day calvinist to me Bob!

[doctr_of_grace]

Jan, everything is good with what you have said--thanks! My thinking on James for a long time has been that he professed the truth (as documented in Acts 15) but was a compromiser. I do not believe he was a 'member' of what Paul refers to as the 'James party' in Gal. 2 but the men in the party claimed James as their leader and it is clear that James should have dismissed these men from his fellowship and recognition but did not. He was playing both sides of the fence and trying to fellowship with both light and darkness (in my view). But I would certainly have to reserve judgment on technically referring to him as an 'antichrist'.

--Bob

Thanks again for clarifying this for me ... appreciate the time you have spent studying this stuff and I appreciate your opinion on things. I have really enjoyed reading much of the material on the forum and blogs. You guys run a tight ship and that is how it should be.

I agree with Brandan's comment it truly does sound like the "modern" calvinists of today.

[~JM~]

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).

I agree with much of what your wrote Mr. Higby.