Pope and Anti-Christ

[John81]

What happened to the teaching the pope is or will be the anti-christ? Those books and booklets I read from the 70s and early 80s dealing with the end times all preached this or something similar. Some had the pope and RCC filling another evil end-time role, but they all had the pope/RCC as prominent players in the end-time evil. I notice very little preaching or writing about this anymore.

While I know many non-IFB churches have embraced the RCC to one extent or another, has this infected many IFB churches to the extent they no longer preach the pope is antichrist? I know of a couple IFB churches which yoke with the local RCC for "community service and political benefit" and while they don't publicly say the RCC is Christian, they also have no preaching against the RCC or mention of the pope in end times sermons.

What is the current prevailing view?

[Critical Mass]

16 minutes ago, John81 said:

What happened to the teaching the pope is or will be the anti-christ? Those books and booklets I read from the 70s and early 80s dealing with the end times all preached this or something similar. Some had the pope and RCC filling another evil end-time role, but they all had the pope/RCC as prominent players in the end-time evil. I notice very little preaching or writing about this anymore.

While I know many non-IFB churches have embraced the RCC to one extent or another, has this infected many IFB churches to the extent they no longer preach the pope is antichrist? I know of a couple IFB churches which yoke with the local RCC for "community service and political benefit" and while they don't publicly say the RCC is Christian, they also have no preaching against the RCC or mention of the pope in end times sermons.

What is the current prevailing view?

He's the closest thing to the man of sin there is right now. 

Also, I see nothing wrong with a bunch of IFBers joining with Catholics to protest against destructive things within the community as long as it doesn't go anything further than that (ex. interfaith services). I'm probably in the minority here, though.

[beameup]

6 hours ago, John81 said:

 While I know many non-IFB churches have embraced the RCC to one extent or another,

Many Baptist churches have embraced Augustinian Theology, which formed the basis for the creation of the Catholic Church.  I haven't ran across any IFB churches that have embraced Catholic doctrine, with the exception of the "Reformed" Baptists.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

12 hours ago, John81 said:

What happened to the teaching the pope is or will be the anti-christ? Those books and booklets I read from the 70s and early 80s dealing with the end times all preached this or something similar. Some had the pope and RCC filling another evil end-time role, but they all had the pope/RCC as prominent players in the end-time evil. I notice very little preaching or writing about this anymore.

While I know many non-IFB churches have embraced the RCC to one extent or another, has this infected many IFB churches to the extent they no longer preach the pope is antichrist? I know of a couple IFB churches which yoke with the local RCC for "community service and political benefit" and while they don't publicly say the RCC is Christian, they also have no preaching against the RCC or mention of the pope in end times sermons.

What is the current prevailing view?

Brother John,

I myself have NEVER believed that the pope of whatever future time would be the antichrist.  On the other hand, I believe that maaaaaybe (???????) the pope of that time could be the false prophet.  Furthermore, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church IS the extension of the Roman Empire unto this day, in its "iron-and-clay-mixed" form (such that the Roman Empire will not need to "revive," since it has never ceased).  Finally, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church will indeed have a prominent part during the seven year Tribulation Period, very likely as the central core for the "one-world religion" of that time.

[John81]

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother John,

I myself have NEVER believed that the pope of whatever future time would be the antichrist.  On the other hand, I believe that maaaaaybe (???????) the pope of that time could be the false prophet.  Furthermore, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church IS the extension of the Roman Empire unto this day, in its "iron-and-clay-mixed" form (such that the Roman Empire will not need to "revive," since it has never ceased).  Finally, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church will indeed have a prominent part during the seven year Tribulation Period, very likely as the central core for the "one-world religion" of that time.

Some have believed the pope may be the false prophet, I've read of that too. Most believe the RCC will be heavily involved with the one-world religion. I've not heard before the idea the RCC is the continuation of the Roman Empire. Mostly I've encountered the belief the Roman Empire will be reconstituted in some form. Over the years that idea has taken on many forms with some seeing the Common Market, the EU, some future grouping, or even simply the "ways of Rome" with some going to the point of claiming the revived Roman Empire encompasses all Western nations, including USA, Canada, Australia, etc., as well as most of Europe.

[swathdiver]

Your answer again comes from 2 Timothy 4, verses 3 and 4.

The pope is an anti-christ.  The catholic church is part of the whore of babylon, the whore of Revelations 17, she and her harlots.  Satan is using the world's music to break down the walls of separation to build the end-times, one world church.

[Invicta]

From about AD1200 when the papacy had achieved his ultimate power, the Waldensians recognised him as Antichrist.  In this they were followed by the Bohemian Brethren, Wickliff and the Lollards.  There are letters from John Huss to English Lollards reproduced in some publications.  You can read the Waldensian Treatise on Antichrist from about AD 1200 on line. Due to the RC persecution of these groups, the teaching dropped out as the Waldensians accepted the Mass, the Hussites were exterminated and the Lollards were practically so.  After the reformation, Luther independently recognised the fact, gradually at first when he expressed a suspicion to that effect, then by the time he burnt the papal bull and excommunicated the pope, he was sure.  He wrote a tract called Against the execrable bull of Antichrist. All the non Catholics followed him, many coming to the same conclusion independently.  This teaching was hurting the RCC so they put out alternative teachings to try to counter it.

One was by the Jesuit Alcazar who taught that Nero was Antichrist so it couldn't be the pope.  This didn't catch on.

The second was futurism introduced by the Jesuit Francisco Belarmine, followed by Roberto Belarmine and others who taught that the Antichrist was future and therefore could not be the papacy.  This futurist teaching seemed to be confined to the RCC till about 1825 when Edward Irving, Scottish Presbyterian and Charismatic began to teach it. In 1826 he claimed to begin teaching dispensationalism  on Christmas Day 1825. In the next few years Irving's prophets began giving "prophecies" or "utterances" as one called them.  Irving's views on prophecy and spiritual gifts were discussed, it is possibly that Irving was at least one of the meetings and took his teaching to prophetic conferences in Ireland in 1931, which Darby and others attended.  This was followed by annual conferences till 1836.  The first two were held under the context of the established church.   The third in 1833 was under the auspices of the Brethren B W Newton one of the early leading Brethren in Plymouth disagreed with Darby on the pre tribulation rapture and the separation of the church and the Jews, Harold H Rowden says that Darby had not firmly fixed his views till about 1843.  The Brethren were renowned for their missionary activities and took the teaching to many parts of the world.  In England the teaching was mainly confined the Brethren till the late 19th century.  Since the  beginning of the 20th Century with the help of the Scofield Bible coming over from the US and the teaching  seemed to spread via that.  

I don't know of any church in England that has the Darby/Scofield teaching in their declaration of faith. That is not to say there are none, There may be hundreds but I don't know of any.  Brethren would.  Most Baptist churches that I know would not  I know of one WWCOG man who believes that and one charismatic. Whethger their churches teach that, I don;t know.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

6 hours ago, John81 said:

I've not heard before the idea the RCC is the continuation of the Roman Empire. Mostly I've encountered the belief the Roman Empire will be reconstituted in some form.

Brother John,

I am certainly aware that the "revived Roman Empire" position has been the predominant position among Independent Fundamental Baptists.  Indeed, I was taught that position and held to it for many years.  However, my present position concerning the Roman Catholic Church being the "continuation of the Roman Empire" comes from my understanding concerning the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image (see Daniel 2) and concerning the prophecy of Daniel's vision of the four great beasts (see Daniel 7).

Concerning the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, that image represented four great kingdoms that would arise, one after the other.  Yet the fourth kingdom would be divided into two "phases," the first represented only by the strength of iron and the second represented by the mixture of iron and clay.  This fourth great kingdom we understand to be the Roman Empire.  Concerning the prophecy of Daniel's vision of the four great beasts, each beast also represented a great kingdom that would arise, one after the other.  Of them the fourth beast will have ten horns, which represent ten kings that shall arise at the same time within that fourth kingdom.  Again we understand that this fourth great beast represents the Roman Empire.

Now, according to history the political Roman Empire ended hundreds upon hundreds of years ago.  Thus most teach that the Roman Empire must revive in order for the "ten toes" period and the "ten horns" period to be fulfilled, just before the Second Coming of Christ to destroy it.  Yet in Nebuchadnezzar's dream there is NO break in the legs of the image to represent an ending and a reviving, and in Daniel's vision there is NO death and then resurrection of the fourth great beast.  Rather, both the dream and the vision appear to indicate that from the beginning of the fourth great kingdom (the Roman Empire), it shall continue until it is destroyed at Christ's Second Coming.

Yet how does this unify with the historical record?  First, from the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, we do understand that the fourth great kingdom (the Roman Empire) will experience two "phases," first the "phase" wherein it will be politically as "strong as iron" and second the "phase" wherein it will be "divided," possessing both the strength of iron and the weakness of clay, being "partly strong and partly broken," because there will be a mingling "with the seed of men."  So then, in what way has the Roman Empire continued unto this day, retaining some of its "iron" political strength, but also possessing a weakness and "brokenness" by being mingled among the people?  The answer of my position -- The Roman Catholic Church.

[John81]

19 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother John,

I am certainly aware that the "revived Roman Empire" position has been the predominant position among Independent Fundamental Baptists.  Indeed, I was taught that position and held to it for many years.  However, my present position concerning the Roman Catholic Church being the "continuation of the Roman Empire" comes from my understanding concerning the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image (see Daniel 2) and concerning the prophecy of Daniel's vision of the four great beasts (see Daniel 7).

Concerning the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, that image represented four great kingdoms that would arise, one after the other.  Yet the fourth kingdom would be divided into two "phases," the first represented only by the strength of iron and the second represented by the mixture of iron and clay.  This fourth great kingdom we understand to be the Roman Empire.  Concerning the prophecy of Daniel's vision of the four great beasts, each beast also represented a great kingdom that would arise, one after the other.  Of them the fourth beast will have ten horns, which represent ten kings that shall arise at the same time within that fourth kingdom.  Again we understand that this fourth great beast represents the Roman Empire.

Now, according to history the political Roman Empire ended hundreds upon hundreds of years ago.  Thus most teach that the Roman Empire must revive in order for the "ten toes" period and the "ten horns" period to be fulfilled, just before the Second Coming of Christ to destroy it.  Yet in Nebuchadnezzar's dream there is NO break in the legs of the image to represent an ending and a reviving, and in Daniel's vision there is NO death and then resurrection of the fourth great beast.  Rather, both the dream and the vision appear to indicate that from the beginning of the fourth great kingdom (the Roman Empire), it shall continue until it is destroyed at Christ's Second Coming.

Yet how does this unify with the historical record?  First, from the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, we do understand that the fourth great kingdom (the Roman Empire) will experience two "phases," first the "phase" wherein it will be politically as "strong as iron" and second the "phase" wherein it will be "divided," possessing both the strength of iron and the weakness of clay, being "partly strong and partly broken," because there will be a mingling "with the seed of men."  So then, in what way has the Roman Empire continued unto this day, retaining some of its "iron" political strength, but also possessing a weakness and "brokenness" by being mingled among the people?  The answer of my position -- The Roman Catholic Church.

Thank you for the explanation. At the moment I don't see it as such but I will look into this idea more closely and see where it leads.

[Alan]

10 hours ago, Invicta said:

The second was futurism introduced by the Jesuit Francisco Belarmine, followed by Roberto Belarmine and others who taught that the Antichrist was future and therefore could not be the papacy.  This futurist teaching seemed to be confined to the RCC till about 1825 when Edward Irving, Scottish Presbyterian and Charismatic began to teach it. In 1826 he claimed to begin teaching dispensationalism  on Christmas Day 1825. In the next few years Irving's prophets began giving "prophecies" or "utterances" as one called them.  Irving's views on prophecy and spiritual gifts were discussed, it is possibly that Irving was at least one of the meetings and took his teaching to prophetic conferences in Ireland in 1931, which Darby and others attended.  This was followed by annual conferences till 1836.  The first two were held under the context of the established church.   The third in 1833 was under the auspices of the Brethren B W Newton one of the early leading Brethren in Plymouth disagreed with Darby on the pre tribulation rapture and the separation of the church and the Jews, Harold H Rowden says that Darby had not firmly fixed his views till about 1843.  The Brethren were renowned for their missionary activities and took the teaching to many parts of the world.  In England the teaching was mainly confined the Brethren till the late 19th century.  Since the  beginning of the 20th Century with the help of the Scofield Bible coming over from the US and the teaching  seemed to spread via that.  

Invicta,

In an effort to try and disprove the biblical doctrine of the pre-tribulation Second coming of Christ, and biblical dispensationalism, as taught in the scriptures you try and teach that 'futurism' was introduced by individuals and is not of the scriptures.

Furthermore, you try and connect good IFB brethren with Catholic priests, Irvingates and the Brethren and teach that as a historical truth. You also give too much credit to the Scofield Bible that is undeserved. You twist and distort history on a continual basis in order to confuse the saints who believe the truth.

The pre-tibulation, pre-millenial coming of Christ, is biblical Doctrine and we, independent Baptists believe it is so due to a word-by-word study, correct, interpretation of the scriptures and not by the distorted historical records that you bring out.

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Alan
spelling

[Invicta]

11 hours ago, Alan said:

Invicta,

In an effort to try and disprove the biblical doctrine of the pre-tribulation Second coming of Christ, and biblical dispensationalism, as taught in the scriptures you try and teach that 'futurism' was introduced by individuals and is not of the scriptures.

Furthermore, you try and connect good IFB brethren with Catholic priests, Irvingates and the Brethren and teach that as a historical truth. You also give too much credit to the Scofield Bible that is undeserved. You twist and distort history on a continual basis in order to confuse the saints who believe the truth.

The pre-tibulation, pre-millenial coming of Christ, is biblical Doctrine and we, independent Baptists believe it is so due to a word-by-word study, correct, interpretation of the scriptures and not by the distorted historical records that you bring out.

Alan, Thank you for your reply.  I have not tried to teach anything.   I have just written the history as I find it.  I used Harold H Rowden's book, The Beginnings of the Brethren, for information on the Powerscourt confereneces.  Had I read a bit earlier Mr Rowden gave almost the same information as I did only much better written.  If I had remembered it was there I would have copied it directly.  He starts the section by  mentioning the Historicist writer Cuninghame and uses Samuel Maitland's chart written to disprove it (but doesn't show the chart).  He then goes on t the history of futurism which more or less corresponds with what I wrote earlier.  It is a matter of fact account .  Mr Rowden would no doubt agree with your teaching as he was a member of the Brethren.  A note on the flyleaf says:

Born of Missionary Parents in Sucre, Bolivia, Dr Rowden is in Fellowship with the Christian Brethren,  He exercises  a preaching ministry, Mainly the Home Counties and the West Country  The book is dated 1967..     

Edited February 19, 2016 by Invicta

[Invicta]

14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother John,

I am certainly aware that the "revived Roman Empire" position has been the predominant position among Independent Fundamental Baptists.  Indeed, I was taught that position and held to it for many years.  However, my present position concerning the Roman Catholic Church being the "continuation of the Roman Empire" comes from my understanding concerning the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image (see Daniel 2) and concerning the prophecy of Daniel's vision of the four great beasts (see Daniel 7).

Concerning the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, that image represented four great kingdoms that would arise, one after the other.  Yet the fourth kingdom would be divided into two "phases," the first represented only by the strength of iron and the second represented by the mixture of iron and clay.  This fourth great kingdom we understand to be the Roman Empire.  Concerning the prophecy of Daniel's vision of the four great beasts, each beast also represented a great kingdom that would arise, one after the other.  Of them the fourth beast will have ten horns, which represent ten kings that shall arise at the same time within that fourth kingdom.  Again we understand that this fourth great beast represents the Roman Empire.

Now, according to history the political Roman Empire ended hundreds upon hundreds of years ago.  Thus most teach that the Roman Empire must revive in order for the "ten toes" period and the "ten horns" period to be fulfilled, just before the Second Coming of Christ to destroy it.  Yet in Nebuchadnezzar's dream there is NO break in the legs of the image to represent an ending and a reviving, and in Daniel's vision there is NO death and then resurrection of the fourth great beast.  Rather, both the dream and the vision appear to indicate that from the beginning of the fourth great kingdom (the Roman Empire), it shall continue until it is destroyed at Christ's Second Coming.

Yet how does this unify with the historical record?  First, from the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, we do understand that the fourth great kingdom (the Roman Empire) will experience two "phases," first the "phase" wherein it will be politically as "strong as iron" and second the "phase" wherein it will be "divided," possessing both the strength of iron and the weakness of clay, being "partly strong and partly broken," because there will be a mingling "with the seed of men."  So then, in what way has the Roman Empire continued unto this day, retaining some of its "iron" political strength, but also possessing a weakness and "brokenness" by being mingled among the people?  The answer of my position -- The Roman Catholic Church.

Absolutely.  

There were 10 Gothic kings that overthrew the Roman Empire.  This accords with the teaching of the early church that the let and hindrance of 2 Thess 2 was the emperor end the empire allowing the papacy to arise which they called the Antichrist.   There could not be  rulers in Rome claiming all power.  I did read somewhere that after Constantine removed the empire to the east, no ruler apart from the papacy ruled from Rome, all the western emperors ruled from other cities such as Milan, but I have never been ably to verify that.

[Alan]

6 hours ago, Invicta said:

Alan, Thank you for your reply.  I have not tried to teach anything.   I have just written the history as I find it.  I used Harold H Rowden's book, The Beginnings of the Brethren, for information on the Powerscourt confereneces.  Had I read a bit earlier Mr Rowden gave almost the same information as I did only much better written.  If I had remembered it was there I would have copied it directly.  He starts the section by  mentioning the Historicist writer Cuninghame and uses Samuel Maitland's chart written to disprove it (but doesn't show the chart).  He then goes on t the history of futurism which more or less corresponds with what I wrote earlier.  It is a matter of fact account .  Mr Rowden would no doubt agree with your teaching as he was a member of the Brethren.  A note on the flyleaf says:

Invicta,

My post still stands and the history as you, and Mr. Rowden, does not supersede the authority of the scriptures.  The scriptures, and the doctrines contained therein, are inspired and preserved. You, and Mr. Rowden, are not inspired nor preserved.  

Again, you are using whatever source you can find to try and dis-credit the Biblical doctrine of the dispensationalism and the doctrine of the pre-tribulation coming of Christ for the church.

[Invicta]

22 minutes ago, Alan said:

Invicta,

My post still stands and the history as you, and Mr. Rowden, does not supersede the authority of the scriptures.  The scriptures, and the doctrines contained therein, are inspired and preserved. You, and Mr. Rowden, are not inspired nor preserved.  

Again, you are using whatever source you can find to try and dis-credit the Biblical doctrine of the dispensationalism and the doctrine of the pre-tribulation coming of Christ for the church.

I am sorry Alan, I see no point in continuing this discussion.  You claim to be a literalist but you absolutely are not. The point is not Biblical doctrine but a personal interpetation.   I take the 70 weeks literally, you don't.  I take the "prince who will come" literally but you don't.  I take Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 Literally but you don't you add your own spin to them.  

Edited February 19, 2016 by Invicta

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother David,

21 hours ago, Invicta said:

Absolutely.  

There were 10 Gothic kings that overthrew the Roman Empire.  This accords with the teaching of the early church that the let and hindrance of 2 Thess 2 was the emperor end the empire allowing the papacy to arise which they called the Antichrist.   There could not be  rulers in Rome claiming all power.  I did read somewhere that after Constantine removed the empire to the east, no ruler apart from the papacy ruled from Rome, all the western emperors ruled from other cities such as Milan, but I have never been ably to verify that.

1.  Except that the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 and the prophecy of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7 teach us that the "ten kings" (as represented by the ten toes of the image and the ten horns of the fourth beast) are actually a part of the fourth great kingdom, not a part of a fifth kingdom that will overthrow the fourth great kingdom.

2.  Except that the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 and the prophecy of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7 teach us that the fourth great kingdom will be overthrown, not by some other kingdom of mankind, but by the kingdom of God that will come down out of heaven.

Thus the "10 Gothic kings that overthrew the Roman Empire" would not appear at all to be a fulfillment of these prophetic utterances.

Furthermore, in 2 Thessalonians 2 the One who withholdeth specifically is holding back the power of iniquity.  From my understanding of God's Holy Word, I would contend that the ONLY power that is capable of holding back the forces of iniquity in this world is the divine power of the triune Godhead.  Thus the One who withholdeth would be an individual member of the Godhead, or one who is directly empowered by the Godhead.  So then, with all due respect to the early believers of the 2nd and 3rd century, the government of the Roman Empire would not at all appear to be a legitimate candidate for this position.  In addition, in 2 Thessalonians 2 the One who withholdeth is presented in the singular as a single individual, not as a government full of individuals, or as a succession of individuals.

Finally, throughout the New Testament "the man of sin," the "antichrist," is also presented as a singular individual, not as a succession of individuals.  Therefore, the succession of the popes would not appear at all to be a fulfillment for this position.

Indeed, I shall continue to contend that the Roman Catholic Church, along with its succession of popish leadership, is the continuing extension of the Roman Empire in its "iron-mixed-with-clay" form, but not the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the singular "man of sin" that is to be revealed after the One who withholdeth is "taken out of the way."

Edited February 20, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
removing the annoying merger of postings.