The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Who is the Antichrist?

It has been suggested on this board that Hillary Clinton may be the Antichrist. The WCF has another candidate for that office:

Is the WCF correct? single choice
	Yes.
	Yes, but it is an historical judgment pertaining only to that period in history.
	No.
	Other. (Please explain)
Votes accepted starting: Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I chose "other"

Wouldn't it be better to say the Pope is AN antichrist, as Scripture says there are many antichrists gone out into to the world?

I chose "No" because the WCF states that the pope is THE "Antichrist". My personal view is in agreement with yours; the pope is one of the many antichrists who have gone out into the world and of which there will be many more prior to the revealing of THE Antichrist and prior to Christ's return.

In His Grace,

I voted "yes" because I believe the Papacy (the office) is that particular "man of sin", etc., despite the proliferation of antichrists. I think the superlative antichrist is therefore that office rather than a specific individual.

I choose yes, even though the Scripture [in places] says there are many.

My reason is that, at least for now, there is no one else in this world who is the most deceptive to people who are attempting to discern spiritual truth. Just consider the week of blasphemous propaganda we have experienced with the recent RCC selection of a new pope. It must be remembered that the pope's spirituality is now making horrendous inroads into the Protestant Church.

IMO many if not all of the other antichrists, especially the ones of our New Age are easily identified with just a rudimentary understanding of Scripture.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Oh like I'd know!

Besides, the WCF isn't inspired, is it? And it was put together during a time of intense, er, dislike? of the Pope and Catholics in general?

I suspect we'll all be surprised, you know, if we're not already dead.

doulos,

It was also put together during a period of an "intense" love of Scripture.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Denny,

The problem I have with the WCF and its identification of THE Antichrist as the Pope is a hermeneutical one. Since I hold to the "Grammatico-Historico" hermeneutic (method of interpretation), I have to ask how the readers living during the Apostle John's day and/or immediately after "Revelation" was written understood these passages and how they were to be legitimately applied. Unless it can be established that these passages are futuristic, i.e., 1) prophetical and 2) have no relevance to the first century, then a view that identifies the pope as THE Antichrist is untenable, since the Roman State Church didn't even exist until nearly 200+ years after "Revelation" was written. So, how can such a view be justified historically? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

I am also a historicist, at least I think I am.

I certainly know better than to debate eschatology with you as I know you are more knowledgeable. But please tell me where I might be wrong here.

The Emperors of Rome were in existence before and during the writing of the Revelation. They called themselves "god" just as the pope does today (Infallible Vicar of Christ on earth). Even though the RCC was not established until about 300AD(?) it is no stretch for me to see (as well as others) that this may certainly be held as historic continuity. Rome and its Caesars ruled the world even at the time of Christ and the pope may be historically considered a successor, because of his claim of deity, with his monarchy at the Vatican City State in Rome.


I believe that the Revelation, and the antichrist of 1 and 2 John, applied to the Emperor of Rome in John's day and is still valid for the "Bishop of Rome" today.

So, because of location and historic succession, for John to call Nero or which ever Ceasar, antichrist in his day may still be laid to the pope's "See" in Rome today. There are still valid arguments as to the date of the Revelation. Some say it may have been written as early as 70 AD.

PS -You're not fooling me, I know you laying in wait like a crouched tiger.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

'Tis not true!!

Well, I can't accept nor follow your "logic"; i.e., the leader of the Roman Catholic Church is the successor of the Emperor of ancient Rome. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> There have been many throughout history who have claimed to be God's representative on earth, even Christ Himself. Secondly, the Apostle John never said that the Emperor of Rome was THE antichrist; who was a figure of the one who is to come, and who will be the epitome of all the former "types" of antichrists who preceded him. Again, I have no problem seeing the Roman Pontiff as "one" of the many antichrists:

Notice that John does not state that the Emperor of Rome was THE antichrist, but rather that he was yet to come some time in the future. Yet he affirms that there were many antichrists scurrying about in his day. Secondly, it is important to note that all of these antichrists were at one time members of the Church; "they went out from us, i.e., they apostatized from the faith. This would also eliminate the Emperor or Rome as being THE antichrist or even being one of the many antichrists of John's day. Thus, my reason(s) for rejecting your premise. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

I believe that you already know this by heart and I also know that the WCF is not the inspired Word, but I must quote this again.


Now, I cannot believe that the Westminster Divines who could quote Scripture in their sleep, did not know that the Scripture speaks of many antichrists. They also knew that the antichrist is sometimes referred to as a single person.

"the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come" 1 Jn 2:18

I believe that he (the antichrist) is also referred to as the man [singular] of sin by Paul. 2 Thess 2:3

How is the man of sin to be revealed if he is not clearly revealed sometime in history by true Christians?

Your argument is not with me, a fellow servant, but with the Westminster Divines. I do not have all of your answers except to say that most if not all of the Reformed teachers believed that the Pope is the antichrist including Luther and Calvin. As you know, neither of these men were inclined to bypass Scripture just to have the pleasure of calling names. As far as I know, they never called anyone else antichrist, including the worst of the heretics.

As for me, I wake up in the morning 359 years later (WCF 1646) and see a pope and his cardinals pompously dressed in purple and red, with one billion followers, in Rome and on television. Guess what? They are speaking and doing the same outrageous blasphemies that they have been doing for the last 1700 years. I don't believe anyone is going to convince me that that soul destroying gang of vipers are just another one of many antichrists. My very own sleepy eyes tell me to trust in the judgement of those precious Westminster brothers and their interpretation of who the man of sin or antichrist is.

I thought that my logic in the succession of self-deified Roman Ceasars and Popes in Rome was plausable but obviously you do not. So I will consider your opinion and leave it there.

Someone once told me in this forum that "There is nothing new" so I'm afraid I will probably side with those great men of the Reformation and the Westminster Divines.

In Him

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

I'm surprised that mine seems to be the first reply from an orthodox Preterist...

The spirit of antichrist has been in the world from time of the Apostles at least, but the Beast spoken of in Revelation I believe to have been Nero.

Denny, some good points.

In Pagan-to-Papal Rome I do indeed see a thread of continuity in essential persecution of / opposition to the true church, and I cannot separate the blasphemous ecclesiastical claims of the former from the latter. They are both essentially Pagan to me, albeit the latter has a veneer of Christianity to it, with its gods and goddesses renamed as "saints". And I think first century Christians could look at Pagan Rome and know that it was its main persecutor as well as a hotbed of false religion.

Denny,

What we can agree upon is that the writers of the WCF were not "inspired". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And I believe that they were prone to error due to deep-seated prejudices when it comes to wanting to make the Roman pope THE "antichrist". My hermeneutical questions have gone unanswered and it is upon Scripture, as the authors of the WCF acknowledge, that I must base my beliefs. Again, there can be no doubt that the pope is ONE of the "antichrists" which have gone out into the world. But the "man of sin" is YET to be revealed, i.e., his arrival and identity are yet future. It isn't the "office" of the pope that Scripture is concerned about but rather person(s) and their theology/philosophy, which would include such odious and deceived individuals as Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Charles Taze Russell, Charles Manson, etc., ad nauseam.

Unfortunately, this statement is not historically accurate. The majority of those who have held that THE antichrist have been those who have held to post-millennialism, (exceptions noted). The vast majority of professing Christians have not held to this view. And, as you know, right doctrine is not determined by a majority vote. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Both Luther and Calvin were wrong on several things and I simply believe this is one place they did err. Given the circumstances in which they lived in regard to the domination, suppression, and deception of the RCC, it isn't surprising that they would have seen the pope as THE antichrist; their revulsion of that organization influencing their interpretation of Scripture. To be sure, such influence is not unique to them, the Puritans nor any other group or individual. It is something we are all susceptible and should carefully and constantly guard against. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

When THE antichrist is finally revealed, it is doubtful whether most professing Christians will in fact recognize him as such. For the majority of them will be deceived and only a remnant will be left who hold fast to the truth and worship the one and only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.


In His Grace,

Thanks Pilgrim,

OK, so I guess we agree to disagree. I do have, however, just a few simple yes or no follow up questions for you if you don't mind.


Yes or no is sufficient for me: Do you have any personal "premises" or speculations as to who or rather from what quarter or philosophy/religion this man might arrive?

And:


Are you absolutely sure that it is the case that these men prejudiced themselves against the Scripture in this way?

And:


Has this not been the exact scenario ever since the great Luther uttered the words: "The Roman Catholic Church is a slaughterhouse of souls."

Denny

Roms 3:22-24