flunky1 said: Pilgrim, I am just not seeing how we can deduce from Scripture that the superlative antichrist referred to is definitely a specific individual rather than an office.
It's so simple, really! Read the Scriptures. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" /> They refer to THE antichrist as "he" . . . not "it". Secondly, an office cannot hold to dogma; persons only hold to dogma. Thirdly, there are specific "denials" which the Apostle John says THE and the MANY antichrists can be identified by. The "office" is of one, not "many". Fourthly, THE antichrist is referred to as the man of sin who "is to be revealed". Thus how can an existing "office" qualify as that which hasn't been revealed yet and one which is inextricably tied to the end of the "last days"? And lastly, THE antichrist will be cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer eternal torment along with all the other reprobate persons. This cannot be said to be true of an "office".
What more needs to be said? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
In His Grace,
Hmmm... At any given time, it is a man who holds the office. Were there no man, there'd be no office - I think the Reformers saw it that way.
An ecclesiastical office without dogma is like, well, an office without a man to fulfil it. The dogma defines the office.
As for the office being revealed, well, can't we suggest that the few Christians around when the papacy arose were witnesses to something new being revealed in the ostensible "church"? Prior to that, there was nothing so blatantly perditious in the visible church since Judas Iscariot.
And, of course, all who fulfil the Papal office will be cast into the lake of fire.
