02.09. Why the Pope is Not the Antichrist

IX WHY THE POPE IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST

I

ASthe articles forming the chapters of this book appeared from time to time in theChristian Herald(see prefatory note), they naturally gave rise to questions, some of which were sent by the editors to the author for reply in their columns. A few of them were not questions somuch as expressions of dissent from some of the views presented. For example: that the Jewish nation would be rehabilitated in Palestine proved a surprise to some, and even intelligent and educated people were found capable of so reading the Bible on that subject as to make it teach the very opposite to the truth.

Another theme whose treatment brought unhappiness to some was that of the apostasy and the Antichrist. That Babylon means the papacy and that the man of sin is the Pope, is one of the beliefs of the Reformation period that is still held by not a few with more tenacity even than the doctrine of justification by faith itself.

There was good reason for the Reformers feeling keenly on that subject, and good excuse for their misunderstanding the Scriptures concerning it; but history, to say nothing of Sacred Writ, has proved them to be wrong.

We know how erroneous is the teaching of Roman Catholicism and how soul-destroying it is. And we know also that the character and conduct of its hierarchy in many places closely resembles what the Bible teaches about Antichristianity and the Antichrist. But to closely resemble a thing is not the same as being the thing itself. In the fulfillment of prophecy a part of the evidence is not enough. To reach a conclusion on that basis breeds all sorts of confusion. The prophecy must be fulfilled completely, if God’s Word shall be honoured and our faith sustained. We do not hesitate to say that Roman Catholicism is a daughter of Babylon whose features resemble her mother’s very closely, but still the daughter and the mother are not identical.

II An exception is made here in order to discuss one of the letters received on this subject. The correspondent refers to the Pope’s assumption to be the "vicar of Christ," and says,“his assertion is Antichrist." Of course the correspondent does not mean just that, because it would negative his contention. The Antichrist, whoever he may be, is a person and not an "assertion" merely. But what the correspondent means is that such an assertion on the Pope’s part is anti-Christian, with which we fully agree. Indeed, the whole system of Roman Catholicism is anti-Christian, and as such it is one of the contributing elements, and a strong one, in creating a political and religious situation favourable to the rise of the Antichrist; but this is different from saying that the Pope himself is that person. At another place in his letter the correspondent quotes Paul as saying that "this whole popery is an untruth, a lie, hence is Antichrist." But he does not mean just that either, for Paul never mentions popery. The correspondent discloses what he means when he says that "the Pope fulfills Paul’s description in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12." But here he is mistaken. The Pope’s blasphemy and arrogance have been very great, but he has not yet opposed and exalted "himself about all that is called God, or that is worshipped." His very title "vicar of Christ," disproves that. Nor does he, as God, sit "in the temple of God showing himself that he is God." The Vatican or St. Peter’s at Rome is not the temple of God and is not called by that name. Roman Catholicism does not attach the word "temple" to its church buildings. The temple Paul has in mind is the historic one in Jerusalem, which is to be rebuilt by the Jews in the latter end of this age. Our correspondent does not believe this, and affirms that "we have no Scriptural evidence that the temple ever will be rebuilt"; but in this he again errs, “not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."

He errs at still another point, when he takes exception to the remark in our article that the Antichrist has yet to appear. He quotes Paul’s saying that "the mystery of iniquity" was already at work, as a proof that the Antichrist existed over 1,800 years ago. But "the mystery of iniquity" and the Antichrist are not one and the same; the Antichrist develops out of the mystery of iniquity, and the apostle himself testifies that the former had not been revealed in his day, but was yet to come (verse 8).

III But why take such pains with this matter? Is it merely to refute an opponent? By no means. Time is too short and space is too valuable for that. It is to make clear the teaching of Scripture on a very serious matter, and one that grows more and more serious as we "see the day approaching."

We may be mistaken indeed, but it looks to us like a case of spiritual camouflage. That French word has sprung into the limelight during the progress of this war, and we have come to learn that it means some kind of humbug for the deception of the enemy. In some such way as this, Satan is now acting with reference to the great move he is soon to make. That move comes when he is cast out of heaven and down to this earth (Revelation 12:9-13), and when he will give "his power, and his seat, and great authority" to the beast (Revelation 13:2). In the meantime he would divert our thought from the real beast by occupying it with a humbug. He would keep us from watching out against the greater enemy to come, by concentrating our attention upon the lesser enemy that now is.

IV To speak plainly, the Papacy is an enemy of truth, and the Pope himself is no dim foreshadowing of the Antichrist, but that monster, when he arrives, will find his way prepared for him through Protestant Berlin as well as Catholic Rome. To quote Nietzsche, the German philosopher, whose teaching is so largely responsible for this war: "While preparing to found a world-empire, Germany is also preparing to create a world-religion."

If such a purpose or preparation were limited to Germany, we might not seriously fear; but the philosophical and religious teaching which underlies it is rife throughout Christendom. Our colleges and universities are permeated with it, and our pulpits in some cases are its mouthpiece. By such teaching is meant that which ignores, or questions, or outrightly opposes the Bible as the revealed will of the only true God, the incarnation and deity of Jesus Christ, His impeccable humanity and the infinite value of His atoning sacrifice for the salvation of all men. This is what is true in Protestantism to-day, and has been true for a long while; and it is laying the ground and preparing the way for the real Antichrist, who is yet to come, and whose description and history elicited the above remarks.

QUESTIONS ON THE LESSON 1. What is the opinion of some as to the papacy and the Pope?

2. When did it take its rise?

3. How is the teaching of Roman Catholicism characterized?

4. What relation may Roman Catholicism be said to bear to Babylon?

5. What relation does Roman Catholicism bear to the Antichrist?

6. How does the Pope fall short of fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12?

7. What temple has Paul in mind in that Scripture?

8. What is the relation of the Antichrist to the “mystery of iniquity"?

9. What word of current warfare illustrates Satan’s method in the world at present?

10. What event is scheduled in his history before very long?

11. How is he seeking to humbug us about it? 

12. How will the Antichrist have his way prepared for him?

13. According to Nietzsche, what is Germany seeking to do?

14. What do we mean by this false "plu1osophy and religious teaching"?