The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Timothy George says we have nothing to worry

In response to my call to imagine what things would be like, etc., etc., if John Paul II had not been, or Benedict XVI was not pope, you replied:


I would have to disagree with this, at least in part. No pope would adopt and proclaim a pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-liberation agenda outright and openly --- it would be introduced slowly and gradually, with study commissions, councils, encyclicals, etc., etc. Vatican II was a radical departure from orthodoxy and tradition; yet, it's deviations have been embraced more or less wholeheartedly by the majority of Catholics because it was in sympathy with the spirit of the times. Well, the spirit of the age today is even more radically pagan and unorthodox, so I wouldn't expect much resistance over the long haul. Catholic theology is so convoluted, confusing, and unbiblical that most Catholics will believe anything over time, provided it is sufficiently popularized and presented by a trusted priest or pope. Most of the Catholics that I know are basically New Age pantheists and pluralists who believe all "good people" are part of the church (anonymous Christians) and will go to heaven, "whatever that is," to be with Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Buddha, and Mohammed.
Nevertheless, I do believe that over time such a church would "disintegrate into chaos" like most or all liberal Protestant churches; but ultimately, this is idle speculation, just like your judgment that the pope is the Antichrist.



The only references to the Antichrist (as opposed to "the Beast," the "man of lawlessness," or the "Abomination of Desolation") that I can find are in the letters of John:



From these passages it is clear that anyone who "denies that Jesus is the Christ," or "denies the Father and the Son," or does not confess "Jesus is from God," or does not confess "the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh" is an antichrist. While Karl Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI) doctrinal errors are MANY and SERIOUS, he has never denied that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus is God, the Trinity, or the Incarnation; in fact, he has defended these doctines with vigor against liberals within the Church who deny them. If he doesn't even qualify as an antichrist, how can he be The Antichrist?

I'd say the pope being "less beguiling" to "doctrinally weak evangelicals" is a good thing, wouldn't you? A pope who is "weak" on ecumenism, turning off evangelical Protestants who want to embrace all Catholics everywhere and say "brother," while at the same time holding the line against theological and political liberalism, providing a bulwark against even greater moral depravity and the culture of death --- who could ask for anything more in a pope? He is the pope after all, not the President of the SBC or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Hi everyone <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Having quickly read this thread, I found something of interest. The following is what I recieved from Grace Gems (daily email) following the death of John Paul II:

The Death of John Paul II

I grieve for John Paul II who gained the whole world
but forfeited his soul. Year after year he was the most
loved and admired man in the world, but because he
was blinded by the prince of this world, he never saw
the light of the gospel or the glory of Christ. Had he
been a devoted follower of Jesus Christ he would have
been hated and persecuted by the world. I also grieve
for the many who have been deceived by this pope and
his religion. It breaks my heart to see so many professing
Christians who cannot discern truth from error and genuine
Christianity from its counterfeit.

If ever there was a more important time for faithful servants
of our Lord Jesus Christ to take a stand for the truth, it is now.
The religious corruption of Rome has been on constant display
for the whole world to see. The splendor and pageantry has
been extraordinary. Thousands of deceived people have stood
in long lines to venerate a dead man with a rosary in his hands
and a twisted crucifix by his side. Bishops and Cardinals are
now encouraging Catholics to pray to and for this dead pope
whose body is constantly being "blessed" with incense and holy
water. Praying prayers with meaningless repetition to anyone
other than God is an abomination to God (Matthew 6:5-7;
Deut. 18:11). The bizarre veneration and adoration of this man
has been unprecedented. It appears no one is concerned with
the words of Jesus who said, "Woe to you when all men speak
well of you" (Luke 6:26)

Tragically the pope has had greater success in deceiving the
world since he died than during his 26 year pontificate. The
global media has become his mouthpiece and willing partner
in spreading his perverted theology. Through non-stop television
coverage, the pope's church has become the world's stage. Its
princes have been masquerading in their purple and scarlet robes
as "ministers of righteousness." They have cast a spell over the
TV audience with the splendor or their rituals and the pomp and
pageantry of their pagan traditions. The magnificence and
grandeur of this corrupt religion has bewitched much of the
gullible world into believing this is what Christianity is all about.

Few evangelical leaders will speak about the pope's false gospel
that shut the kingdom of heaven to those who wanted to enter.
They refuse to acknowledge that he was condemned by God's
word for preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Instead they
are saying that since he "believed in Jesus," he went directly
to heaven. His salvation has been guaranteed by some
evangelicals because of his suffering, goodness, and holiness.
There are times in the lives of evangelicals when our faith is
tested. This is indeed one of those tests and sadly we see
many failing the tests by capitulating with enemies of the
Gospel. Could it be that they are seeking the favor and
approval of men rather than the approval of God?

Many are praising John Paul II for being a great spiritual leader.
But why give such honor to the head of an apostate church which
keeps over a billion people in spiritual darkness. While he never
claimed to be God, he took pleasure in being addressed with
titles reserved for the triune God alone. He usurped the title
"Holy Father" from God the Father, "The Head of the Church"
from the Lord Jesus Christ and "The Vicar of Christ" from the
Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised to send in His place.

The pope said he represented Jesus Christ, yet he lived in stark
contrast to the Savior who had no place to lay His head. He
denied Jesus was man's Creator by teaching evolution is true.
On several occasions he denied that Jesus was the only way to
the Father. When he addressed Muslim leaders, he said there is
"a common spiritual bond that unites us." In 1999 he denied the
blood of Jesus was the only purification for sin by awarding a
plenary indulgence for anyone who quit smoking or drinking
alcohol. John Paul is acclaimed as a great moral leader, yet
he failed to discipline American Bishops for tolerating the
wicked sexual abuse of deviant priests.

One thing is certain--the pope knows the truth now. I believe
he is experiencing what the rich man in Luke 16 endured. Both
of them dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in splendor
every day. When the rich man died and found himself tormented
in the flames of Hades, he begged the Father to send someone
to tell his family the truth so they would repent and not end up
in the same place. The pope may now be making the same request.

The passing of John Paul II opens up a tremendous opportunity
for Christians to talk about spiritual issues. We must speak the
truth in love and proclaim the Gospel with clarity and completeness!
We must also earnestly contend for the faith against everything
that stands opposed to God's word. May God help us to be faithful
in these times of great deception and compromise!
Mike Gendron"

Dave

There is something both Hopeful and Speratus have alluded to in their posts that I feel is the central issue in answering the question of whether or not Benedict XVI is really "nothing to worry about" and "good news for evangelicals," and whether we should "rejoice that 'this' pope is now leading the RCC faithful."





Whether we like it or not, whether it is good or right or not, the pope and Billy Graham are the spokemen of Christianity to the world (blame the world, blame the media, blame the church, blame whoever you like, but facts is facts). Billy Graham will die sometime in the near future (barring Rapture or Second Coming of Christ) and then there will just be the pope again (though I fear Rick Warren intends to try to fill Billy Graham's shoes). This is true regardless of who the pope is. Therefore, where the pope stands and what the pope says about doctinal, moral, and political matters is significant --- it matters (think fall of Communism, abortion, etc.).
The gospel of the Roman Catholic Church is a false gospel, and therefore, no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-7). It would be wonderful if the pope and the RCC embraced the true gospel of out Lord Jesus Christ; but, if they did I believe they would cease to exist altogether in their present mode (which is fine by me). But until a pope comes along with Martin Luther type aspirations or a Samson complex, we must not say that one pope is just as bad as another. There are degrees of badness, and the pope's badness must be compared and contrasted with that of other popes and leaders within the RCC, and his theology judged according to realistic and living options within the RCC.
I have no difficulty with anything in the article Hopeful posted, and I can rant about the corruption and deception of the RCC as long and as loudly as anyone. But of all the potential candidates for a new pope, I think Ratzinger was the best choice. What the media often refer to as "reformers" or "reform-minded" people in the RCC are not Protestant or evangelical reformers, they are liberal, modernist, anti-supernaturalist, New Age, pantheist, feminist, pro-homosexual Catholic reformers. There are no "Luthers" that I know of (if you say Hans Kung I'll shoot you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />) --- they just become Protestants these days. Again I ask, would a pope even slightly more sympathetic towards these "reformers" have been a better choice?

Brad

I see your reasoning behind what you said, but there is another way of looking at this.
If as you put it a "reform minded pope" had been elected, many Protestants would not be deceived into thinking that the RCC represents the true Gospel.
The way it is however, many Protestants are heralding the pope as a defender of the Christian world view.

I will let you judge which option is worse.

Tom

But are they rushing out and joining the Catholic Church? Do they really believe the only differences now are about incense, robes, and rosary beads? And he (the pope) does in fact defend many aspects of a Christian worldview...just not the most important one.

To go back to the Luther illustration, supposing Ratizinger was in fact a Luther in the making (his specialty is Augustinian theology), would it be more or less likely that he would move in those directions if he believed the bible was human rather than divine in origin? Would he be more or less likely to move in that direction if he believed God was not really a Divine Person but "the ground of all Being," or a cosmic force realizing itself through evolution? And this isn't just about the beliefs of the pope himself, there is a "trickle-down" effect on other priests and teachers inside the church. This is true whether the pope is "good" or "bad," and from what I've seen most Catholics will swallow anything, so I don't wish to see a more heretical pope just so Protestants will remember why we're not Catholics.


How Protestants perceive the pope really is not imortant in my opinion, provided they don't join his church or start citing his authority on doctrinal matters, which at present, none of them (that I know) are doing. If they believe what the RCC is teaching is "the true gospel" it's their own fault and the fault of their pastors. The souls of millions within the RCC are simply too precious for me to worry about the doctrinal incorrectness of certain latitudinarian Protestants.

The Antichrist is no dummy. He knows the fragile state of his dominion. There are the pantesists and pluralists but there are also traditionalists highly alarmed over Vatican II. Any movement toward pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc. could galvanize them into declaring Benedict an Anti-Pope.


Please refer to the WCF for equivalent names in scripture.


The Pope denies Jesus is the Christ; denies the Father and the Son; denies Jesus is from God; and denies the coming of Christ in the flesh when he says:


The Pope will not permit any human creature to be saved by Christ. Salvation is by his power and through obedience to his laws. The meaning of "Antichrist" is "In place of Christ" not "Against Christ."

It was (father) Abraham whom he begged, actually, not the Father.

Brad,


I see it didn't clearly state it, but yes, that's what I was thinking--along with the WHI-4.

Must you twist the Scriptures which Brad provided for you which clearly state what the antichrist denies to be true to try and defend your erroneous position? The passages state that the antichrist will deny:

The current pope does not deny that Jesus is the Messiah! Nor does he deny the person of the Father and the Son as being God; two of the three persons of the Trinity. The matter is one of theology (proper) NOT Soteriology.

The current pope confesses that Jesus is from God. He's never even hinted otherwise. Again, this is a matter of Christology and NOT Soteriology.

The current pope affirms that Jesus Christ will return to earth bodily; in the flesh. This is a matter of both Christology and Eschatology and NOT Soteriology.

The RCC and the pope embrace myriad heresies. There is no reason, nor do you have warrant to fabricate more to charge them/him with. From all that you have posted on this Board, I would recommend that you spend more time removing the log from your own eye before you try and remove any splinters or logs from anyone else's. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

And I would recommend you read Richard Bennett's article on The Highway.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> And just who think put that article on The Highway website?

You just don't get it, do you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> The Scriptures say NOTHING about the antichrist's views concerning soteriology, but rather theology, e.g., the Trinity, Christology and Eschatology, i.e., the most basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. You, however, have taken those passages and performed a botched job of eisogesis and in so doing dishonored the wisdom of God the Spirit Who authored them. And, it must be added that you have also slandered the man who now occupies the odious office of Pope in the RCC, attributing to him a guilt which the Scriptures do not. This is a most serious sin and one which you need to repent of.

Speratus,

It's obvious that you have a very well developed and elaborate eschatological narrative worked out in your head, complete with dark conspiracies and villains who are so cunningly clever they are always several steps ahead of anyone who might expose them or their insidious secret plans. But so far I have not seen any good Scriptural support or evidence for these speculations; if I may say so, thus far your arguments are all Jenkins and no LaHaye.

Pilgrim makes the right points in response to your charge that Boniface VIII's denial of sola fide is equivalent to Benedict XVI denying that Jesus is the the Son of God, that he is the Christ, and that he came and will return in the flesh. Is every heresy equivalent to or identical with every other? Are there no distinctions? As Pilgrim observed, all popes have been guilty of myriad heresies, including Benedict XVI, and there is no need to add heresies that they have explicitly denounced and condemned to their account. As harsh as his words may sound, this is slander and bearing false witness.

In response to my statement that "the only references to the Antichrist (as opposed to "the Beast," the "man of lawlessness," or the "Abomination of Desolation") that I can find are in the letters of John," you said:


Well, the Westminster divines don't mention "the Beast," but they do refer to "that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God," which I suppose means the "man of sin" or "lawlessness" and "son of perdition" that Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. While many people believe this passage refers to and describes The Antichrist, simply calling him by another name, I am not convinced that it does, and I do not believe that the text demands this, though it may be a valid interpretive inference. The Westminster Confession may consider the "man of sin" and "the antichrist" equivalent terms (although this too seems debatable) but I do not. I am open to biblical arguments demonstrating why the Westminster Confession is right about the pope being the antichrist, and the antichrist being the same person as the "man of lawlessness;" but, as Pilgrim has noted elsewhere, it is not an inerrant document, and it cannot simply be quoted like Scripture to put an end to an argument. While it does provide scriptural texts to justify and defend its statements, it does not provide a defense for its interpretation of these passages. That is something you must do.

But really all of this is beside the point. Assuming that the "man of lawlessness," "the Beast," "the Abomination of Desolation," and "the Antichrist" are all the same person (or even the same 'office' as some would have it), nothing in Scripture indicates or even suggests that his blasphemous acts and/or heretical denials are secret, hidden, or concealed; rather, they are performed openly and spoken plainly for all to see and hear. People are/were/will be "deceived" and damned by believing these lies which are/were/will be openly proclaimed.

Christ is the sole head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:8), and the Roman Catholic Church's claim that the pope is the head of the church and the Vicar of Christ is unbiblical, blasphemous, and heretical; it is even un-Christian and anti-Christian. But it is not the spirit or doctrine of the antichrist, because it does not deny those things that the Bible says the antichrist will. The fact still remains that no pope (that I know of) has ever denied that Jesus was the Christ, that he was the Son of God, or that He came in the flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary. John Paul II did not deny these things, and Benedict XVI has not. If and when he does then it will be obvious that he manifests the spirit of the antichrist, and is an antichrist, if not The Antichrist. Until then, in my humble opinion, all you've got is an unbiblical conspiracy theory.



In Christ,

Brad Hammond

Pilgrim,

Please help me I'm sinking fast into eschatological quicksand. I am hoping that you might sympathize and throw me at least a line.

I reach for an Amillennial branch and it breaks the very second I read from Postmillennial authors and proponents. I then reach out of my sand for this Postmillennial branch and the very convincing sense of my Amillennial brothers causes this branch to also break. Pilgrim, I am a little dull but I don't believe I'm an idiot to say that these camps BOTH have good arguments!

I am now up to my nose and spitting sand. All of this is distressing, to say the least, as I know that our eschatological beliefs may profoundly affect our witness and view of the world and people around us.

I have rejected Chiliasm (Scofield and crowd) and full preterism years ago for what I believe you to know are good reasons.

But... my confusion has just been demonstrated again in your post, and you may reject my paraphrase of your words if you think necessary:

You said, if I heard you right, that the application of the title "THE antichrist" to the pope is erroneous because he does not meet the definition of "THE antichrist" as presented to us in Scripture. Ok, said and done, but in another thread (Who is the Antichrist?) you said that you have no problem considering the pope as being one of the antichrists. Forgive me for being so dull, and maybe I missed it but does this mean you have separated "The antichrist [singular, one person]" from "many antichrists" or "the spirit of the antichrist". In other words "THE antichrist" has a different nature and identity than "many antichrists". If the pope does not meet the criteria for "The antichrist" how can he even be considered an antichrist at all?

Can you see my personal confusion here?

Anyway, if it is true about this separation, what you say here has profound implications for additional thought on my part. And please don't forget the life-line to my quicksand.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Jenkins and LaHaye are unwitting accomplices in a conspiracy begun by the Jesuits hundreds of years ago to overthrow the sound eschatological doctrine of the confessing Reformation churches in favor of a futuristic Antichrist not found in scripture. Judging by the results of a poll on a conservative Reform board, the conspiracy has been quite successful.


The Pope does not just deny sola fide. He says no man comes to the Father but by him. He usurps the mediatorial office of Christ to himself. Benedict has had amply opportunity to repudiate this blasphemony of the papacy.