MODERN PROTESTANTS AND THE PAPAL ANTICHRIST
Modern “Protestants” (loosely considered as Christians who do not consider themselves RC’s) have nothing like the virtually universal consensus among old Protestants in their doctrine and attitude toward the Papacy. If we focus upon the views of what might be called “evangelicals,” whose roots can be traced to the old Protestants, three basic positions can be discerned. We intend to review the conception, declaration, and justification of each. For simplicity’s sake, we will consider each position fully before moving to the next.
Position #1: The Pope of Rome Is a Great Christian Leader
1. Conception.
Many and perhaps most “evangelicals” today, at least in America, have capitulated to the Papacy to the degree of declaring that the Pope is a great Christian leader and the RCC is a true church of Christ. The popularity of this position ought to alarm everyone who loves Christ and the true gospel.
We are living in days when a spirit of ecumenical cooperation between the RCC and self-professed evangelicals, some even of a Reformed identity, is growing. Obvious examples include the several “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” documents (now five) which began to be produced in 1994 with the participation of Chuck Colson and J. I. Packer,23 prevalent praise for the late Pope John Paul II, 24 and the warm welcome some evangelicals gave to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI.25 Note well that these accolades for the current Pope even came from a professor at the conservative and Reformed Westminster Seminary California!
Another disturbing example comes from Billy Graham who has a long track-record of strong support for the RCC and its popes. 26 Interviewed by Larry King on April 2 last year after John Paul II had died, Graham responded to the question, “There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?,” by saying,
Oh no. There may be a question about my own, but I don’t think Carol Wojtyla, or the Pope—I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the Cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the Cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.27
Billy Graham’s great influence and the support he enjoys from many evangelicals suggest that his personal views on these things are widespread.
That this represents nothing less than a seismic shift of the prevalent attitude in evangelical and Reformed Christians over a period of centuries is perfectly apparent once one knows the history of this doctrine.
The label “Protestant” ceases to have any defensible application to these “evangelicals.” D. M. Lloyd-Jones’ classic addresses on this topic suggest they are not even true evangelicals.28 Who could argue with the proposition that they are “defenders of the RCC” and “leaders of ecumenical union with the RCC”?
2. Proclamation.
Essentially, the case is made that since Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both claim to represent
Christ and have boldly advocated conservative political and moral positions with arguably sweeping effects in the modern world, they should be considered great Christian leaders. We could cite many primary sources for verification, but let us omit any further comment on this since the opinion is grievous and unedifying.
3. Justification.
In my judgment, this first position has no justification whatsoever but rather is a pernicious false doctrine, plain and convincing evidence of more apostasy. I can hardly believe I am living in a day when those who are regarded as leaders of conservative, Bible-believing Christians are publicly agreeing that we hold the same gospel in common with the Pope of Rome, that evangelicals and RC’s are all part of the universal Church, equally to be considered brothers and sisters in Christ, and that calling RC’s out of Romanism into evangelical churches is a sinful proselytizing to be renounced! Nevertheless I solemnly affirm to you that all this, and much more, is sadly true.
Position #2: The Pope of Rome Is an antichrist, But Not Necessarily “The Antichrist”
1. Conception.
Some have withheld full assent to the old Protestant position, apparently judging it is too much to
identify the Pope of Rome as “the Antichrist” specifically foretold in Scripture. Anecdotal evidence suggests a general rejection of a historicist eschatology in favor of a futurist view of the Antichrist, the view shared by dispensational premillennialists and originally popularized from the RCC itself.29
There seems to be a reluctance to accept the notion of specific biblical prophecies being fulfilled without
corresponding biblical testimony that the fulfillment did occur historically. Yet in several other examples people of good judgment generally and readily do just that.
⇒ The fall of ancient Tyre. Ezekiel 26 is the classic prophecy against Tyre. Bible scholars know that it was
partly fulfilled in a 13-year siege by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (585-572 B.C.), and finally its every
prophetic detail found a historic counterpart in Alexander the Great’s seven-month siege of Tyre in 332
B.C.). 30 Even though our knowledge of these amazing fulfillments of prophecy comes from extra-biblical sources, believers generally receive them anyway.
⇒ Antiochus IV (reigned 175-164 B.C.). “His career and character are prophetically described by Daniel
(11.21-32).” 31 We can readily see how the elements of this prophecy came true from comparing the historical account in the non-canonical book of 1 Maccabees. 32There is no comparable fulfillment record in the Scriptures, yet we generally receive the fallible record of history as fact, especially because it matches so well with what the Bible says would happen.
⇒ Peter’s death (John 21.18-19). Obviously, there is no inspired record of the actual circumstances of Peter’s death, and there is also no doubt that he did die. By faith we know Jesus’ prophetic word here must have been fulfilled to the letter. Finally, there is an ancient tradition among Christians which says that Peter was martyred by being crucified upside down, 33 and this is not a matter of particular controversy.
⇒ The fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (e.g., Matt 24.1-2). The Bible contains this prophecy without its historic
fulfillment, but we know, again from extra-biblical sources including Josephus, that it was fulfilled
during the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.34
⇒ Letters to the seven churches (Rev. 2-3). Several particular prophecies about these local churches (e.g., 2.10) had to occur after Revelation was written and the biblical canon was closed. Therefore if we are to discover any historical evidence of fulfillment, it must necessarily come from extra-biblical evidence.
Many serious scholars purport to do just that; consult academic commentaries for illustrations of this.
⇒ Finally, the spread of the gospel throughout the world in the last twenty centuries (e.g., Psa 2.8; 22.7; Acts 1.8; 13.46-47; cf. Isa 49.6). Many OT prophecies foretold the days in which we now live, when Christ would be calling out His own from the ends of the earth–every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. The
fulfillment of these wonderful texts began dramatically in the book of Acts, but the actual realization
continues in our own time and will not be complete until Christ returns. Indeed, the modern missionary
movement of the last several centuries was begun with confident hope in these promises and their
pertinence to declaring the gospel among the heathen living abroad. These sentiments are not
controversial in the least among us, so why is the old Protestant historicist eschatology concerning the
Antichrist considered so incredible?
This last example of historicist eschatology is particularly important and telling. If the prosperity of the
true church alongside the rise of a false, apostate “church” with the “man of sin” at its head are both
foretold in the OT and NT Scriptures (this much is indisputable), and if we readily identify orthodox
evangelical Christianity through the centuries since Christ came as the former, why are modern
believers so hesitant to identify the mammoth, apostate RCC as the harlot church, and the Papacy as the
Antichrist?
Still, the cautious brethren espousing the second position have thankfully maintained a strongly
negative judgment of the Papacy and the RCC and have thus preserved their own identity as Protestants. For example, expounding this part of the Westminster Confession, G. I. Williamson said,
There would seem to be no doubt, then, that “the man of sin” was to be an individual, a particular person, who would virtually assume the place of God in an apostate branch of the Christian Church. And some have maintained that there is a clear distinction between one who opposes Christ and one who assumes the place of God. . . . However, there is much to be said for the position of the Westminster Assembly. . . . the concepts of “antichrist” and “man of sin” would seem to require fulfillment in a system having historical development, and which progresses to a final presumption on the part of man. Evidently, the Westminster Assembly saw in the papal system forces of evil working to just such a fulfillment of iniquity. To them, the papal system marked the defection from apostolic Christianity foreseen and foretold in Scripture. Because each Pope represented this antichristian system, he was therefore personally an antichrist. And the Papacy as an institution emerged as the historic framework from which a
final “man of sin” would arise, taking the final step of practical self-deification. There was a time when, because of waning papal power, this may have seemed unlikely. But today, when there is serious talk, and much more than talk, of reunion with Rome on the part of Eastern Orthodox and even many Protestant (?) denominations, the formulation of this section of our Confession does not seem so far- fetched.35
And ecumenism with Rome has only gotten worse since Williamson’s comments were published in 1964.
Nevertheless, modern confessional Reformed churches often strike the identification of the Antichrist
from their confessions altogether, as in the revised Westminster Confession of Faith which was changed in 1903 to a mere denial that the Pope of Rome can be head of the church in any sense.36 Sometimes confessional churches will affirm an old Protestant confession while including a caveat about this in their church constitutions, e.g.:
We regard the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (excepting the assertions regarding the salvation of the mentally incompetent [10.3] and the identity of the antichrist [26.4]) as a
faithful, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of the Word of God.37
Even if some church members do hold the old Protestant view, such a qualification keeps assent to the
strongest assertion on this matter from being required of church officers or members, whatever the church’s philosophy of confessional subscription. This second position keeps the proposition that “the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist” from being considered an indispensable article of the Christian faith, leaving each church officer and member with complete liberty to form his own judgment about it.
In September 1988, elders of three influential Reformed Baptist churches (Trinity Baptist Church of Montville, NJ; The Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI; The Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Mebane, NC) produced a draft revision of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith with very interesting results. Their consensus revision on the confession’s doctrine of the Pope of Rome probably reflects a prevalent understanding among discerning Reformed pastors today.
[Wherefore, no] Pope of Rome [can ever] 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, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. [of the church, or vicar of Christ, or successor of Peter and the other apostles; to the contrary, such blasphemous claims, together with their doctrines of demons 38 and bloody persecutions, 39 abundantly demonstrate that the Popes of Rome are false apostles, sons of perdition, and ministers of the Devil, fashioning themselves as ministers of righteousness, and that the church of Rome over which they rule is apostate.40]41
While striking the old Protestant wording, the modern revision publicly and dogmatically affirms that
individual Popes of Rome are Satanic opponents of Christ and His people, and that the modern RCC is a false church, fairly judged to be “apostate.” Apostasy is commonly understood to mean “a deliberate repudiation and abandonment of the faith that one has professed (Heb 3.12). . . . The apostles warned about the rise of apostasy in the church, culminating in the appearance of the man of sin (1 Tim 4.1-3; 2 Thess 2.3).”42
If modern believers and evangelical churches would generally affirm this perspective with earnest
conviction instead of the old Protestant view, one wonders if it would make any practical difference. Perhaps one could argue it is slightly less hostile toward Rome than the old view and might be further diluted in future generations, but as it stands, it also implies all the applications preached by old Protestants and summarized at the end of this message.
2. Proclamation.
In a sermon entitled simply, “Roman Catholicism,”43 Martyn Lloyd-Jones seemed to take this second position before he died in 1981, while remaining sympathetic to the historic stance of the old Protestants. We take liberty to recite a lengthy quote from this venerable man whose insight was unusually great.
What, then, are we looking at? We are looking at a system; and I would not hesitate to assert that this system, known as Roman Catholicism, is the devil’s greatest masterpiece! It is such a
departure from the Christian faith and the New Testament teaching, that I would not hesitate with the Reformers of the sixteenth century to describe it as “apostasy.” Now let us be clear about this. We define apostasy as a kind of total departure from the Christian truth. . . .Here is a great body, an institution, that has from time to time throughout the centuries—and still is doing this very thing—manifested the wiles of the devil in all its subtlety and deceitfulness, “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” as the Scripture puts it. All this is clearly prophesied in the Scriptures. You will find it in the second chapter of Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is not the only explanation of that passage; but it is one of them. It may be that there you have this system “raised,” as it were, to [the] nth power, but that is what the system has already been doing. You have it depicted also in the second beast in the thirteenth chapter of the book of Revelation; and I suggest that it is also in the seventeenth chapter of Revelation in the picture of “the great whore” sitting on those seven hills, as Rome does and always has done. All this has shown itself in history. . . .
I ask, as I close, Have we been wasting our time? Need we be concerned about all this? Ought we to be rejoicing that there is a new approach to Roman Catholicism? Should we not all be rejoicing in the face that it is possible for us all to stand together as Christians over and against Communism? That is the question you have to face. For myself I do not hesitate about the answer. This system is altogether more dangerous than is Communism itself, because this is a counterfeit, this does it in the “name” of Christ. This is the “scarlet woman,” this is the most horrible, foul deception of all, because it uses His name. The other is open and obviously atheistical godlessness. No, the Protestant Reformers were not just bigoted zealots, they were not just fools. These men had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. That is what happened to Luther, that is what happened to Calvin, that is what happened to Knox, that is what happened to all of them. These men had their eyes opened, they saw it, they saw this horrible monstrosity depicted in the Bible in the warnings against it, and at the risk of even losing their lives they stood up and they protested. They said that that was not true. So they began to assert justification by faith, the supreme, final, adequate authority of the Scriptures, the universal priesthood of all believers and so on. They were ready to die for those truths, and many did die for them! Let me warn you very solemnly that if you rejoice in these approaches to Rome you are denying the blood of the martyrs! . . .
The Church of Rome remains the same. If anything, she is even worse. She has “added” things to what she taught in the sixteenth century, such as papal infallibility. No, there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if ever there is one great world church it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed all the rest and swallowed them in their ignorance! There is no difficulty about this; this is a counterfeit, a sham; this is a prostitution of the worst and most diabolical kind. It is indeed a form of the antichrist, and it is to be rejected, it is to be denounced; but above all it is to be countered. And there is only one thing that can counter it, as I said at the beginning, and that is a Biblical, doctrinal Christianity. A Christianity that just preaches “Come to Christ” or “Come to Jesus” cannot stand before Rome for a second. Probably what that will do ultimately will be to add to the numbers belonging to Rome. People who hold evangelistic campaigns and say, “Ah, you Roman Catholics, go back to your church,” are denying New Testament teaching. . . .
It is a Biblical, doctrinal, theological presentation of the New Testament truth. That was how it was done in the sixteenth century. Luther was not just a superficial evangelist, he was a mighty theologian; so was Calvin; so were all of them. It was that great system of truth, worked out in its details and presented to the people, that undermined and even shook the Church of Rome. Nothing less than that is adequate to meet the present situation. Christian people, your responsibility is terrible. You must know the truth, you must understand it, you must be able to counter false teaching. There are innocent people who are being deluded by this kind of falsity, and it is your business and mine to open their eyes and to instruct them. Not only that, it is as we stand foursquare for the truth of God that we shall be entitled to pray with fervor and with confidence for the blessing of the Holy Ghost upon us. It is as we stand on the Scripture and its truth that the Spirit of God, I believe, will descend upon us in a mighty revival. And nothing less than such a revival can shake that horrible institution, that great “whore” which calls herself “The Church of Rome.” May God give us enlightenment and understanding of the times in which we are living, and awaken us ere it be too late.
3. Justification.
This second position as represented in the “Draft Revision of the 1689 Confession” appeals to several important Scripture passages (footnotes 38-40). The authors thereby suggest that while the Papacy may not be explicitly foretold in Scripture, it fits the characteristics of the “man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2 closely enough to deserve the same condemnation. The same principle applies to the RCC and the great harlot of Revelation 17. Surely all Christians ought to be able to affirm at least this much.
Position #3: The Pope of Rome Is The Antichrist
1. Conception.
This is simply the old Protestant position incarnate in modern adherents. Many evangelicals still hold to this third or at least the second position. In a recent poll I created on a website called “Sermon Audio,” almost two-thirds of respondents affirmed their belief that the Pope of Rome is either the Antichrist (23% of 354 total votes) or an antichrist (41%).44The remainder either indicated that the Pope is a false teacher but not an antichrist (16%), or that comparing him to the Antichrist is not [warranted] by Scripture or history (8%), or that he is the Head of the Church (5%), or that they did not care to vote on this topic (7%).
2. Proclamation.
Some modern Christians zealously affirm the old Protestant position. Richard Bennett, a former RC priest
and now Reformed Baptist evangelist, has written of his own convictions,45 including damning evidence about the late Pope John Paul II. His conclusions include these statements:
None but God could have delineated beforehand the “mystery of iniquity,” which is clearly the Office of the Papacy of the RCC. Man could never have anticipated all this; only God foretells it. .. . [The evidences] are such that were they not clearly described by the Lord’s Word, and seen in past and recent history, they could never have been expected by man. The prophetic portrayal of the wickedness of the system built around the Antichrist is a demonstration of the divine inspiration of the Bible and the power and authority of our Lord God. To reject the clear testimony of God’s Written Word on the fundamental office of the Antichrist, and to prefer a doctrine that can neither be verified by the text itself nor tested in time is a serious matter. . . . Much futurist teaching has been the work of sincere and dedicated men of God; nonetheless, by failing to expose the presence of Antichrist in our midst, the nations are being lured effectively into slavery once again.46
3. Justification.
The third position has been profusely argued for centuries and to my knowledge, no detailed attempt at
refutation has appeared from modern Protestants of either alternative position.
The old Protestant consensus surely deserves serious consideration today. It should not to be lightly dismissed just because it is less popular now. The joint testimonies of Scripture and church history certainly warrant the either second or third position; the first must be categorically rejected. I solemnly warn you against it. A great host of modern Christians have let down their guard against the RCC and the consequences have been disastrous, with every indication of increasing momentum down the hill of apostasy into the infernal pit of Rome.
GOD’S CALL TO OPPOSE THE PAPAL ANTICHRIST
Whether one holds that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist oran antichrist, it inescapably follows that:
1. The RCC Cannot Be the True Church of Christ. The true church has Christ alone as its Head. Since the RCC claims the Pope is also its Head, it necessarily follows that the RCC is a false church, only a counterfeit of the true. Clearly, this implies that the RCC actually opposes the true church which is loyal to Jesus Christ alone as its majestic and Sovereign Lord.
2. Continuing in the RCC Is Very Dangerous. This would be to remain under the special influence of Satan
and liable to the judgment God has declared against this apostate institution. Followers of the Antichrist
are willingly deceived and typically bound to destruction (2 Thess 2.10-12).
3. Leaving the RCC Is an Urgent Duty. “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev 18.4) is a most plain exhortation given by the Holy Spirit to those who remain in communion with Rome. This is also a most gracious gospel plea with the implicit promise of salvation through Christ, and all to whom the gospel comes have a duty to comply with its terms.
4. Living and Dying in the Religion of the Pope and His False Doctrines Is Incompatible with Being Saved. All who hold to the universal headship of the Pope as an article of their religion cannot simultaneously be
building their eternal salvation upon Christ the only true foundation of believers (1 Cor 3.11-12). Those
who believe as an article of their religion that the church is above Scripture cannot have assurance of
salvation because they cannot know what changes the RCC will make to their religion. How can any
expect souls to be saved in a “church” which has been rejected by God and is totally devoid of true
religion, true faith, and true worship?
5. All Christians Ought To Know in Some Measure About These Dangers. We need this knowledge to avoid being deceived ourselves, to strengthen us in suffering for our opposition to the RCC, to rejoice with all the saints in the ultimate and assured destruction of the RCC, and to appreciate the noble testimony of
countless Protestant martyrs.
6. There Can Be No Peace with Rome and No Communion with Rome. The Bible teaches that we have a duty to strive against false religion and separate from it (2 Kgs 9.22; Amos 3.3; 5.15; Rom 16.17-18; 2 Cor 6.14- 18; Eph 5.11). This surely applies with great force to the Antichrist and his wicked system.
7. God Should Be Greatly Thanked and Praised for Saving Any from This False Religion. Because they were especially held in the clutches of Satan, and otherwise destined to drink of the wine of the wrath of God and to be tormented in the presence of the Lord and His holy angels forever and ever (Rev 14.9-11), is it not a very great matter that they should be saved from their sin and delivered from this catastrophe?
8. It Is Dangerous and Pernicious to Retain Any Romanism in Our Doctrine or Worship. It must therefore be dangerous to retain any customs in the church which represent any degree of communion with such an
enemy of God. Much of the contention among Protestants has been over the particulars of just this point,
and how much better it would be if we could all be of one mind in it!
9. Protestants Are Justified in Opposing the RCC. The RCC charges Protestants with “schism” because we have departed from them in the Reformation, but our departure is justified because of Rome’s obstinate persistence in heretical doctrines, gross idolatries, bloody and tyrannical persecutions, and chronic tolerance of scandalous debauchery in her governors and members. These things prove that the RCC is no true church of Christ, and it cannot therefore be sinful schism to separate from and oppose it.
Turretin introduces his treatise on the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist with a statement of the inevitable
consequences that follow if this is true:
Although various enemies have always harassed the militant Church on earth, enemies by
whom it has suffered countless evils (some open and disclosed, publicly presenting themselves enemies of the Christian name, others hidden and disguised, attacking Christ under the name of Christ Himself). Nevertheless, that implacable Satan, the well-known adversary of our salvation, has stirred up no one more lethal and ever horrible than the Antichrist himself, who, by joining cunning to the art of deceit practiced by his disciples, was destined to attack the doctrine and kingdom of Christ in a revolt against Christ through infamous apostasy. Hence it follows, that of all the controversies engaged between us and the Pontiffs, none presents itself to be of greater importance in confirming the necessity and rightness of our separation. Nor is there a point of debate more profitable than that which enters on the identity of the Antichrist, since, indeed, it is without doubt quite certain that he himself is diametrically set in opposition to Christ so that no communion is permitted with him. Therefore, if we can establish once and for all that the Pope, (who is thrust upon the universal Church as the judge of all controversies, the presider over Councils, the administrator of Kingdoms, the bridegroom of the Church and the Vicar of Christ), is that renowned Antichrist whom Scripture describes and in whom the prophecies are synchronous, then it will be apparent to anyone to conclude in agreement with us that we had by necessity separated from him and his fellowship and that no reconciliation can henceforth be permitted with him.47
Oh Lord, come quickly, throw down Your adversaries, and deliver Your holy church from all her foes! Give us grace to recognize them and oppose them, especially the Papacy and the apostate RCC. Amen.
Notes:
24 “Weblog: ‘Antichrist’ No More: Evangelicals Praise Pope,” Christianity Today, April 4,2005, available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/114/21.0.html
25 “My Contact with the New Pope” by Peter Jones, Scholar in Residence and Adjunct Professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary California, available at http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?821
26 “Billy Graham’s Tragic Romeward Run,” most valuable for its primary source quotes and available at http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/billy_grahams_tragic_romeward_run.htm
27 http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/ANS_PopeGrahamCaviezel.asp
28 Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions (1942-1977), “What Is an Evangelical?,” pp. 299-355.
29 “Widespread Protestant identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist persisted until the early 1900’s when the Scofield Reference Bible was published by Cyrus Schofield. Prior to the Scofield Bible, with few exceptions, the Protestant Confessions of faith declared the Papacy as the Antichrist. . . . . In response to the majority Protestant identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist, the modern view of Futurism (Christian eschatology), a product of the Counter-Reformation, was advanced beginning in the 16th Century. This theory was developed by a Jesuit priest named Francisco Ribera in his 1585 treatise on the Apocalypse of John entitled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostali, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentary. This view was then codified by St. Bellarmine, who gives in full the Catholic theory set forth by the Greek and Latin Fathers, of a personal Antichrist to come just before the end of the world and to be accepted by the Jews and enthroned in the temple at Jerusalem—thus endeavoring to dispose of the Protestant exposition which saw Antichrist in the pope. Bellarmine’s interpretation, in modified form, is now accepted by most premillennial dispensationalists” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist#Prophetic_Identification).
30 Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, in loc.
31 Easton’s Bible Dictionary, in loc.
32 New Geneva Study Bible, notes on Dan 11.21-32.
33 Ibid., in loc.
34 The Wars of the Jews, Books 6-7.
35 The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p. 194.
36 The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church with Proof Texts (2005), p. viii.
37 Constitution and By-Laws of the Calvary Baptist Church of Exeter, NH.
38 Gal. 1:6-9; Gal. 3:11; 1 Tim. 4:1-3 (this and the next two footnotes are in the original document).
39 Rev. 17:6.
40 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Thes. 2:3-5, 9.
41 Draft Revision of the 1689 Confession (Draft 1.04), XXVI.8.
42 Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell, in loc.
43 Available online at http://www.sounddoctrine.net/
44 www.sermonaudio.com. Survey question: “Is the Pope of Rome that Antichrist, that Man of Sin, as stated in the old Protestant confessions?” Survey conducted July-September 2005.
45 “The Papacy: An Overview of Its History and Nature,” chapter four in Catholicism: East of Eden (2005).
46 “The Antichrist Unveiled,” http://www.bereanbeacon.org
47 Turretin, pp. 3-4.
Posted with permission. All rights reserved.