When Protestant protested. Reconsidering the historic reform repudiation of Roman. Brother, let me share with you a summary of what will be found in a few moments in the body of this entire paper. A major change has occurred in the spirit and relationship of evangelicals with the Roman Catholic Church. Its dramatic nature appears more readily from a review of the historic Protestant antipathy against the Romanism and modern Protestant appreciation for the Roman Catholic Church. This old antipathy crystallizes in a provocative statement generally held by earlier Protestants, which is that the Pope is the Antichrist. This is a statement with nuances and a rich Exegetical and historical defense rarely understood or appreciated today. The fact that so many Protestant leaders have affirmed this for so long challenges us to re-examine our own position. A recent modern poll shows that the spirit of historic Protestants has not become altogether extinct. One's attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church may well be an accurate measure of how well the label Protestant really applies to him. As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to oppose the distinctive Protestant biblical doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, a fundamentally positive Protestant-Romanist relationship is ill-advised and quite impossible. Will the Protestant reader stand boldly against the Roman Catholic Church? And now I'm pleased to present to you the body of this paper. The times they are changing, so saying Bob Dylan amid the sixty social revolution, and so may we say of recent trends within evangelicalism and its general attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church. Admittedly, when it comes to fallen human nature, nothing really changes. The preacher observed in the Book of Ecclesiastes that which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done, and there's nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, See, this is new. It has already been in ancient times before. And another passage. Do not say, Why were the former days better than these? For you do not inquire wisely concerning this. Ecclesiastes one nine and ten and Ecclesiastes seven. Well, not just hippies have advocated licentiousness, nor just modern Protestant friendliness toward the Roman Catholic Church. Still, there are seasons when the number and publicity of advocates increase. We're living in days when the spirit of ecumenical cooperation between the Roman Catholic Church and self-professed evangelicals, some even of a reformed identity, is growing. Obvious examples include the several evangelicals and Catholics Together documents. There are now five of those as of this year, and these began to be produced in 1994 with the participation of evangelical luminaries Chuck Colson and J. I. Packer. Another evidence of a warmness of evangelicals toward the Roman Catholic Church in our day is prevalent phrase for the late Pope John Paul II. And then also I've noticed a quite a warm welcome given by some evangelicals to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on his accession to the office of Pope and gaining the title Pope Benedict the sixteen. I'll give you one example of this positive attitude toward the pope and the papacy. Billy Graham, for example, practically a pope of evangelicalism himself. He has a long track record of strong support for the Roman Catholic Church and its popes. He was interviewed by Larry King on April 2nd this year, just after John Paul II had died. And Graham responded to the question from Larry King. There's no question in your mind that he is with God now. And Billy Graham replied in these words. Oh no, there may be a question about my own, but I don't think Carol 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 a 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. Unquote. Now that this represents nothing less than a seismic shift of the prevalent attitude in evangelical and reformed Christians over a period of centuries. and even quite a shift over the period of the last fifty years. It becomes a more readily apparent when the former consensus of Protestant reformers and their immediate successors, including the Puritans, is considered. Some of us find it alarming. The contrast between their views and today's apparent consensus is stark and startling upon first discovery. The almost universal judgment of our Protestant forefathers toward the Roman Catholic Church was that it was a false and apostate church, and their characteristic attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church was intense antipathy or hatred. Their confessions of faith and other writings clearly explicitly and forcefully repudiated leading Romanist doctrines in the institution propagating them. Romanism was such a great concern that one could deduce a fairly comprehensive summary of Rome's errors from an inductive study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thavoi Declaration, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Just look at what those confessions affirm and look at what they deny. And you can infer what the Roman Catholic Church affirms and denies, because it's mostly the opposite of what those products of confession say. Not everything in them is a slight at Rome, but a substantial part is maybe even a preponderance Claiming adherence to such a Protestant confession while nurturing a fundamentally positive attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church would seem to be a great and obvious inconsistency. Friendliness toward the Roman Catholic Church could be warranted theoretically, but if so, it must necessarily part with the Protestant confessional ethos. The concept of truth and advertising is an application of the ninth commandment. I will not bear false witness and nowhere is it more important than in the religious realm. A man may be a friend of Rome or a Protestant, but not both at the same time in the historic sense. It's helpful to consider the origin of the term Protestant. Ironically, a good, succinct explanation is from a Roman Catholic source. The reader must appreciate that this following quote is expressed from a Roman Catholic Church point of view, but the basic facts appear to be undisputed by Protestants, and I would quote them. The Roman Catholic explanation of the origin of the term Protestant. The diet of the Holy Roman Empire assembled its fire in April 1529. Resolve that according to a decree promulgated at the diet of arms fifteen twenty four communities in which the new religion and you realize, of course, when they say the new religion. They're talking about the faith of the problem and it's not a new religion at all. That's a pejorative label they use to describe it. Just the old biblical gospel. So communities in which the new so-called new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble. The altar should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the Council, they should introduce no further innovations in religion. Now, of course, what they're really referring to is reformations of apostate Christianity, but they call them innovation from a Catholic point of view. and should not forbid the mass or hinder Catholic from assisting their own against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherence of the New Evangelical, which was not, of course, really new, but the old one and only true gospel. The elector Frederick of Saxony, the landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Duke of Lüneburg. the Prince of Annals, together with the deputies of fourteen of the Free and Imperial Cities, entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account, they were called Protestants. In the course of time, the original connotation of no toleration for Catholics was lost sight and the term is now applied to and accepted by members of those Western churches and fact which in the sixteenth century were set up by the reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. The same man may call himself Protestant or reformed. The term Protestant lays more stress on antagonism to Rome. The term reformed emphasizes adherence to any of the reformers. unquote from the Roman Catholic school. The proposition they make here that Protestant and reformed are interchangeable terms is interesting, but historically the term reform may have become narrower than Protestant. In other words, there's a sense in which we could say not all Protestants today are reformed. The term reformed is generally associated with Calvinist in particular, and not all Protestants are necessarily Calvinist, and the term reformed may be considered generally to exclude Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopal denominations, generally rejecting, as they do, the regulative principle of worship and having somewhat more in common with Romanism. in there, at least in their liturgy. The term evangelical without qualification has become so diluted now that it's almost useless as a badge of conservative and biblical Christianity. This paper is especially intended for those who consider themselves Protestant reform and conservative evangelical. Now, historian James A. Wiley, himself a Protestant, presents a sympathetic account for the origin of the term Protestants, and I quote from his noteworthy church history books. At Worms, Luther stood alone. At Spires, the one man has grown into a host. The no, so courageously uttered by the monk in 1521, is now in fifteen twenty nine taken up and repeated by. Cities and nation. It echoes travel onward to let laugh their murmurs are heard in the palaces of Barcelona and the Basilica of Rome. Eight years ago, the Reformation was simply a doctrine. Now it is an organization, a church. This little which on its first germination appeared the smallest of all the and which Pope doctors and princes beheld with contempt is a tree whose vows stretched wide in air cover nations with their shadow. The princes renewed their protest at the last sitting of the diet Saturday, twenty-fourth It was subscribed by John, Elector of Saxony, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, George, Margrave of Brandenburg, Ernest and Francis, Dukes of Lunenburg, and the Count of Annals. Some of the chief cities joined the princes in their protestation, as Strasbourg, Nuremberg, Ulm, Constance, Rütlingen, Winsheim, Lindau, Kempsen, Memmington, Nordlingen, Heilbronn, Ischne, St. Gall, and Weissenburg. From that day, the reformers were called Protestant. On the following Sabbath, twenty-fifth of April, the chancellors of the princes and of the Protestant cities, with two notaries and several witnesses, met in a small house in St. John's Lane, belonging to Peter Mutterstock, deacon of St. John's, to draw up an appeal. In that document, they recite all that had passed at the Diet. and they protest against the decree for themselves, their subjects and all who receive or shall hereafter receive the gospel and appeal to the emperor and to a free and general Council of Christendom. On the morning after their appeal, the twenty-six the printers left fire. This sudden departure was significant. It proclaimed to all men the firmness of their resolve. Ferdinand had spoken his last word and was gone. They, too, had spoken theirs and were gone also. Rome hoisted her flag over and over against hers. The Protestants displayed theirs. Henceforward There are two camps in Christendom on quote from J. J. A. Wiley. J. H. Merle Dobinia relates essentially the same account in his excellent book history of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The famous church historian Philip Shaw confirms it further and make these helpful remarks about the event. He says. From this protest and appeal, the Lutherans were called Protestants with good reason. If we look at their attitude to Rome, which remains the same to this day and. Shaw wrote this sometime before 1910. Unfortunately, that statement is really not true today with the Catholic Catholic Lutheran Accords recently signed. in ecumenical dialogue. In any case, back to the workshop. He says it is the duty of the church at all times to protest against sin, error, corruption, tyranny and every kind of iniquity. But the designation which has since become a general term for evangelical Christians is negative and admits of an indiscriminate application to all who descent from potpourri, no matter on what grounds and to what extent. It must be supplemented by the more important positive designation evangelical. The Gospel of Christ as laid down in the New Testament and proclaimed again in its primary primitive purity and power by the Reformation is the basis of historical Protestantism and gives it vitality and permanency. The protest of spire was based objectively upon the Word of God. subjectively upon the right of private judgment and conscience, and historically upon the liberal decision of the diet of fifteen twenty six. Unquote from Philip Shaw. Now, brethren. Hearing all this. About what the word promise that means in this historic sense. Is it possible? that so-called Protestants in our generation have lost so much of their historical character, the label is no longer warranted. Where is the protest against Romanism? Any vigorous protest today seems a lonely relic, a blast from the past, if you will, out of step with modern sensibilities and discretion, even terribly fanatical, antiquated, and downright uncharitable. A few influential evangelical leaders have sounded the alarm concerning trendy ecumenism with Rome, including R.C. Sproul, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and John MacArthur. MacArthur, in particular, does not leave us wondering about his stance on the Roman Catholic and even his judgment about the late Pope's eternal destiny. That is Pope John Paul II. I quote to you from an interview with John MacArthur, where he said, One question that has been raised or alluded to repeatedly is this. Is the Pope in heaven? Numerous people have asked me that question. I'm always tempted to reply, Is the Pope Catholic? After all, the pope was the number one purveyor of Roman Catholic doctrine. The gospel, he believed, was no more sound than the gospel Rome has always taught. It is not the gospel of Scripture." Another outspoken advocate of old Protestantism is Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic who served. For twenty one years as a Roman Catholic. And now he has been for some time converted to Christ and a reformed evangelist. His expertise on Romanism is conspicuous at his website, the Berean beacon. He has helpfully summarized from Roman Catholic errors in a chart comparing quotes from Scripture and from the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church on topics including the basis of truth, salvation by grace alone, the nature of faith, Christ's atonement and his place as the sole mediator between God and man. God's unique holiness, idolatry and communion with the dead, and that is included in the appendix to this paper. Now, I ask you this question. Can you think of anything worse to say to a Catholic today than this? The Pope is the Antichrist. Now, we can hardly imagine any more strident statement of opposition to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church than this. And further, is there anything anything you can think of that would be harder for a Roman Catholic to hear and accept than that proposition. And yet, if it is true, silence is not golden. The old Protestants widely held to some sense of the provocative proposition. Probably not what we would initially suspect today. Consider a smattering of old quotes from respected Protestant leaders of the past. Martin Luther, for example, who lived from 1483 to 1546, he said this. If there were nothing else to show that the Pope is the Antichrist, this would be enough. Thus, thou hear this, O Pope, not the most holy, but the most sinful. Would that God would hurl thy chair headlong from heaven. and cast it down into the abyss of hell. Who gave you the power to exalt yourself above your God? God has commanded to keep faith and observe oaths, even with enemies. You dare to cancel this command, laying it down in your heretical anti-Christian decretals that you have power to do so, and through your mouth and your pen, Satan lies as he never lied before. teaching you to twist and pervert the Scripture, according to your own arbitrary will. Oh, Lord Christ, look down upon this. Let thy day of judgment come and destroy the devil's lair at Rome. Behold him of whom St. Paul speaks in 2 Thessalonians 2, 3 and 4, that he should exalt himself above thee instead of thy church, showing himself as God, the man of sin. and the child of damnation. What else does the pope's power do, but teach and strengthen sin and wickedness, leading souls to damnation in my name. Reformer Thomas Cranmer, who lived from fourteen eighty nine to fifteen fifty six, referring to the prophecies in Revelation and Daniel. He said whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the Pope to be the very Antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reason. John Knox, reformer of Scotland, 1505-1572, he wrote to abolish, tyranny, which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, unquote. And he also wrote that the pope should be recognized as, quote, the very Antichrist and son of perdition of whom Paul speaks, unquote. John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564, and he said this, and this is a direct quote. To some, we've seen slanderers and railers when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so do not realize that they are accusing Paul of intemperate language. When he speaks in 2 Thessalonians 2 after whom we speak. Indeed, so speak from his very lips. unless anyone object that we wickedly for Paul's words which apply to another against the Roman Pontiff. I shall briefly show that these cannot be understood otherwise than of the papacy, and you can follow that up with finding this in Calvin's Institute for the Christian religion where he presents his case. Roger Williams, a Baptist in New England, living from 1603 to 1683. spoke of the Pope as, quote, the pretended vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea, over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself, speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws. But he is the son of perdition. Second Thessalonians 2. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the original wording in 1646, has this statement. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof. But is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the against Christ and all that is called God. Chapter twenty five paragraph six. I would note that the American Revised Westminster Confession omits part of the statement starting with the word of, but is that antichrist. The Savoy Declaration written in sixteen fifty eight. There is no other head of the church, but the Lord Jesus Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be had thereof, but it that is he is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Chapter 26 paragraph 6 corresponding language of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is identical to this language. Cotton Mater, New England Puritan, 1653-1728, said this. The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church and in the Pope of Rome. All the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them. John Wesley, early advocate of what now known as Methodism, who lived from seventeen oh three seventeen ninety one on second Thessalonians two three and his notes on the Bible. He wrote that in many respects, the pope has an indisputable claim to those titles, man of sin, son of perdition. He is in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. and he is to properly styled the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitude, both of his opponent and followers, destroyed innumerable souls and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposes himself to the Emperor, once his rightful sovereign, and that exalted himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, commanding angels and putting things under his feet, both of whom are called God in Scripture, claiming the highest power, the highest honor, allowing himself not once only to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed, no less is implied in his ordinary title, Most Holy Lord or Most Holy Father, so that he said it says in Scripture and thrown in the temple of God. mentioned Revelation eleven one, declaring himself that he is God, that is, claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone, unquote, from John Wesley. Charles Hodge was a very important Presbyterian theologian who lived from 1797 to 1878. and his three-volume systematic theology is still in print and found to be useful by many reformed people. He wrote this on a section about Antichrist. The common opinion, however, among Protestants is that the prophecies concerning Antichrist have special reference to the papacy. This conviction is founded principally on the remarkable prediction contained in Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians. And, following this, Hodge defends the opinion that the Pope is the Antichrist in great and strongly argued detail, suggesting it was his own judgment. Then he describes the Roman Catholic doctrine of Antichrist and concludes that modern Protestant teaching in this area is more similar to the Roman Catholic Church view than it is to the early Protestants. C. H. Persian Baptist pastor and evangelist of London, who lived from 1834 to 1892, wrote this. It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not potpourri in the Church of Rome, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a human cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again for it. So it exactly answers the description on quote. R.L. Dabney was a Presbyterian chaplain in the Civil War for the southern states. He lived from 1820 to 1898. He was Presbyterian, and here's what he wrote about this. For Presbyterians, of all others, to discount the perpetual danger from Romanism is thoroughly thoughtless and rash. We believe that the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Trelacy and potpourri feebly began to work in the bosom of that community and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total extirpation. Why should not the same cause tend to work the same result again? Are we truer or wiser Presbyterians than those trained by the apostles? Have the enemies of truth become less skillful and dangerous by gaining the experience of centuries? The Popish system of ritual and doctrine was a gradual growth which, modifying true Christianity, first perverted and then extinguished. It's destructive power has resulted from that. It has not been the invention of any one cunning and hostile mind, but a gradual growth modified by hundreds or thousands of the cultivators who were the most acute, learned, selfish and anti-Christian spirit of their generation. perpetually retouched and adapted to every weakness and every attribute of depraved human nature until it became the most skillful and pernicious system of error which the world has ever known. As it has adjusted itself to every superstition, every sense of guilt, every foible and craving of the depraved human heart. So, it has travestied with consummate skill every active principle of the gospel. It is doubtless the knee-cloth ultra of religious delusion. That's a Latin phrase that means the most extreme example of its kind. It is the final and highest result of perverted human faculty guided by the sagacity of the great enemy. The system has nearly conquered Christendom one. He who does not see that it is capable of conquering it again is blind to the simplest laws of thought. One may ask, does it not retain sundry the cardinal doctrines of the gospel monotheism, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Christ's sacrifice, the sacraments, the resurrection, the judgment, immortality? Yes, in form, it retains them. and this because of its supreme coming. It retains them while so resting and innervating as to rob them mainly of their sanctifying power, because its design spread its snares for all sorts of minds of every grade of opinion. The grand architect was too cunning to make it like his earlier essays. mere atheism, or mere fetishism, or mere polytheism, or mere pagan idolatry. For in these forms the trap only ensnared the coarser and more ignorant natures. He has now perfected it and baited it for all types of humanity, the most refined as well as the most imbruted." I would also like a more modern preacher in the true church. This man named Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. He lived from 1899 to 1981. Some have described him as the greatest preacher of the twentieth century. That may not be far off the mark. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was a great preacher of the Word of God. He ministered for many years at Westminster Chapel in London, England. And the Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote this. This system, known as Roman Catholicism, is the devil's greatest masterpiece. It is such a departure from the Christian faith in the New Testament teaching that I would not hesitate with the reformers of the sixteenth century to describe it as apostrophe. There's 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." Now, you've heard this evidence. There's no question that these are the things that these respected Protestant leaders have said and written. And I ask you this question. Do you still respect your forefathers? Obviously these are not men and confessions on the fringe, but at the center of historic Protestantism. Men upon whose broad shoulders we stand and subordinate standards we still affirm today. Now, how do we respond to their statements? When we read of this old Protestant belief that the Pope is the Antichrist. Do we dismiss it out of hand? Do we smugly disregard the historic reformed repudiation of Romanism, because of self-assured confidence in our greater charity and our superior discernment? Before indulging such feelings, we really ought to consider carefully the nature and basis for this formerly widespread Protestant belief. The Bible says, he who answers the matter before he hears it It is falling shame to him. Proverbs eighteen thirteen. While we would not be guilty of Protestant traditionalism and ironic counterpart of the Roman Catholic era, where precedents and previous ecclesiastical judgments are accepted by implicit faith in the spiritual ancestors. Yet we must also be exceedingly cautious about jettisoning important ideas that help such great sway among so many theological giants. We should withhold our consent only if they lack solid scriptural support and disagree only if they are against Scripture. Even if the evidence fails to hold one's conscience about all the particulars. Surely, if one is truly Protestant, he will judge their overall concern about Romanism to remain valid. So let us reconsider them with all sincerity, sobriety and earnestness our predecessors intense antipathy to Rome and judge each one for himself whether to embrace it in our own day. What exactly is the Antichrist anyway? What did the Protestants mean when they said the Pope is the Antichrist? We must not think of this eschatological figure in terms like those popularized by Hal Lindsey, Jack VanIppy, Tim LaHaye and other modern purveyors of sensationalistic prophecy. whatever one may think of the year nineteen forty eight UPC code of the marketably and the trilateral commission. These were far from the minds of the Westminster divine from their associates standard theological dictionary present helpful summary of what they meant when they said the pope is the Antichrist. First of all, I like the evangelical dictionary of theology edited by Walter Elwell. The reformers equated Antichrist with the papacy, as had some medieval theologians. Gregory the First, who taught that whoever assumed the title universal priest was Antichrist's forerunner. Joachim of Flores and Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, the translators of the A.V. and the authors of the Westminster Confession concurred in this identification. And then the New Dictionary of Theology. edited by Ferguson. Sixteenth-century Protestants develop the idea that the major biblical account of Antichrist referred to a specific historical entity, but not to an individual man. Instead, they identified Antichrist with an institutional succession of men over several centuries. The Roman papacy. This remained the dominant view until the nineteenth century. It is not too difficult to find historic explanations and defenses of the old Protestant view. Some are long and elaborate. For example, Francis Turretin, well known because of his magisterial institutes of the linguistic theology, a three-volume work representing Protestant scholasticism. had also written a substantial essay in Latin, only recently translated into English and titled Seventh Disputation. Whether it can be proved the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist, unquote. Certain answers in the affirmative with fifty sections, four appendices and extensive footnotes documenting all this. It makes a fascinating study of the topic and demonstrates convincingly that this doctrine was their strong conviction after extensive study and debate, even if one were to dissent from the conclusion. A more accessible case is made by Reverend Henry Wilkinson, sometime canon of Christ Church and Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, in a sermon entitled The Pope of Rome is Antichrist. One of the Puritan sermons preached from 1659 to 1689 during the form of the famed morning exercises at Cripplegate by seventy-five ministers of the gospel in or near London. Even this one sermon on the topic is twenty-five pages of small print But a modern paraphrase and abridgment plan for the near future for educating today's Christians about this topic, and this is something I hope to do, God willing, and present to you. Perhaps most valuable among Reverend Wilkinson's remarks, the Pope is Antichrist, for this essay is his explanation of what his contemporary fellow Protestants intended in their infernal identification of the Pope. and I quote from Wilkinson three paragraph. The enemy mentioned in Second Thessalonians two is set forth as if he were a single person, but it is not so to be taken in this place for it is frequent in Scripture to set forth a body politic or a kingdom or state by a particular person or individual. In Daniel seven one to thirteen there be four kingdoms or monarchies which were in a succession, one after another in the world, deciphered by four great beasts, which are interpreted to be four kingdoms or four kings. Verse seventeen and the fourth beast is called the four kingdoms. Verse twenty three and the vulgar translation renders verse seventeen four kingdoms. so that each be signified a multitude of men in a succession under one government for several ages and so consequently had the head and horn signified the power and sovereignty of such a kingdom for a long time in succession. So we find the state of the primitive apostolical church set forth by a woman in travel revelation twelve one and two. and by a woman in the wilderness versus six and fourteen. So the two horned beast revelation thirteen eleven, which is the same with the false prophet revelation fourteen thirteen nineteen twenty twenty ten does not think signify a single person or a succession of single persons. Suppose the Pope, but a body of deceivers under one head or government the inference he's making is that this is the paper. I continue to quote it is generally agreed by Protestant writers that the pope in this sense as head of that anti-Christian state which is here described is pointed out in this place or that the papacy heaven members in a succession making up one body politic is that monster which they call anti-Christ. It is on all hands agreed on that wherever we find all these characters together with the circumstances that down in the fact that the center that must be the anti-Christ who was to be brought forth into the world before the second coming of Christ. He tells us of one to come a strange one a monstrous one. never was before, and that you may not be mistaken in this prodigious one. He gives us the lively portraiture of him on. Would you be interested in a modern poll? In a recent poll I created on a website called Permanent Audio, almost two-thirds of respondents affirmed their belief that the Pope of Rome is either the Antichrist or an Antichrist. Twenty three percent out of three hundred fifty four total vote that he was the Antichrist and forty one percent out of three hundred fifty four total vote that he was an Antichrist. The remainder either voted that he is a false teacher, but not an Antichrist. Sixteen percent that comparing him to the Antichrist is not warranted by Scripture or history. Eight percent that he is the head of the church. or did not care to vote on the top seven percent of the whole. Admittedly, those participating in the survey were probably not a typical cross-section of evangelicals today. Full members of the sermon audio service, that is, those allowed to broadcast sermons, must affirm sermon audio's articles of faith, which includes, and I'm paraphrasing A high view of Scripture, the Trinity, a high Christology, necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, Christ as the only Savior, two ordinances of baptism in the Lord's Supper, rejection of the World Council of Churches and Evangelicals and Catholics together, which is most germane to this survey, Christ's visible and personal return, and finally salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. and that account for the five-percent answer Bob, but not everybody who took the survey subscribe to all those points. Five-percent thought the Pope of Rome is the head of the Christian Church. They apparently were Catholics listening to sermons on sermon audio. Nevertheless, most participants were likely to appreciate the ministries of sermon audio poll members. Survey participants were also allowed to post messages on this topic. and they finally amounted to 82 printed pages before the editor stopped accepting posts. The very first message posted was prophetic. Put on your asbestos suit. It's going to get very hot in here soon. That was what John from San Jose, California had to say. And my overall impression of the posted comments are that most participants did not seem to realize what the old Protestants meant by the controversial proposition. They tended to interpret it as a statement about Pope John Paul II while he was still living, or about a specific future pope as an individual yet to come. And that's a misunderstanding of what the old Protestants meant by that statement. Now, when is a Protestant really a Protestant? It seems today that we only have a limited number of possible responses to these things. What follows is an attempt at a comprehensive list in order of decreasing Roman Catholic Church antipathy. Opinion A. Historic Protestants were exactly right. The Pope of Rome is the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church is a false apostate church. Opinion B. Historic Protestants were essentially right. The pope is an anti-Christ and strong antipathy for the institution of the Roman Catholic Church is warranted. Opinion C. Historic Protestants were only temporarily right. Today, their views and spirit are no longer valid because modern Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church now share so much on essential doctrines. Opinion D. Historic Protestants were flat wrong in point of fact and spirit. We should repudiate their sinful divisiveness. Recognize the Roman Catholic Church as a true church and embrace our Roman Catholic friends as Christian brethren. Now, with sincere respect for every man's prerogative to judge for himself. I believe only options A or B are biblically, historically and theologically tenable. It seems mainstream evangelicals today would probably feel more comfortable with option C or D. The position taken by evangelicals and Catholics together definitely embodies option D, the most friendly to the Roman Catholic Church. The historic walls separating these so-called problems from the Roman Catholic Church have almost completely fallen down. They seem to identify more readily with the Roman Catholic Church than with historic Protestantism. I ask you this question. Could the true church lack both a solid foundation and a saving message? The basis for my own judgment in favor of a or B is complex, but I keep coming back in my own mind to two great truths that were at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Sola Scriptura, or the formal principle of the Reformation, and Sola Fide, the material principle of the Protestant Reformation. We assume your intimate familiarity with both, but if you don't know what those Latin terms and you are familiar with their new one in her history. I suggest you you get to book that I would recommend first one is full of scriptura the product of this on the Bible and the second is justification by faith alone affirming the doctrine by which the church and the individual stands or falls both of these are published by solely they'll Gloria publication and now you can buy them I'm sure from living near ministries. Dr. R.C. Scrolls work. Full of scripture is a foundation upon which all other doctrine wrath without a firm commitment to this principle. All manner of doctrinal apostasy is possible and virtually inevitable. The Roman Catholic Church itself may be the greatest illustration of disastrous consequences when a people look elsewhere for a standard of truth and Scripture. of the important part of the substance of Scripture saving message about Jesus Christ Luther famously called the doctrine of the doctrine upon which the church stands or fall. There is no true gospel without all of the day and any opposing it set themselves against Christ himself, incurring the terrible anathema of Galatians one eight nine when he was eighty years old. The late Dr. John Gerstner wrote a booklet entitled The Krimmer on Roman Catholicism, in which he distilled in simple terms the essence of the Protestant Romanist contention on justification's relation to faith and works, in which he said, quote, Romanists believe that faith is essential to justification, just as Protestants believe that faith is essential. They do not think it is sufficient for justification. but they do not believe that justification can come about apart from faith. The Council of Trent stressed the fact that faith is necessary as the root of the good work which we do for justification. Roman Catholicism teaches justification by work alone, but not by work that are alone. The Reformation insisted that justification is by faith alone. but not by faith that is alone. Justifying faith is working faith and we know Protestants in general and the reformed in particular say that the Roman Catholic position on justification is not the true doctrine. It is not a saving justification of Holy Scripture. Dr. Gerstner mentioned the new one in the booklet that Rome formally attributes all merit for a believer's justification to Christ, but he dismisses this is not materially affecting a fair charge against the Roman Catholic Church of teaching a heretical view of justification. Modern official Roman Catholic doctrines, most notably the Catechism of the Catholic revealed that she remains unequivocal and firm in her opposition to both faith commitments which have been so basic to all of Protestant thinking. Recent ecumenical dialogue notwithstanding. Specifically, the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1994. Maintains a stand against full scriptural when it says, and I quote, both Scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiment of devotion and reverence. The Catholic catechism also contradicts Sola Fide. This comes out most clearly in a section on merit where it says. Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification at the beginning of conversion moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity. We can learn merit for ourselves and for others. The grace is needed for our sanctification for the increase of grace and charity and for the attainment of eternal life. even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. Such errors hardly concern evangelicals anymore. Michael Horton makes a devastating remark about evangelicals and Catholics together in the latest issue of Modern Reformation magazine. called. Can we be confessional and Catholic? And here's what Michael Horton had to say. Michael Horton, a modern Protestant. My own criticism of the impressive initiative known as Evangelicals and Catholics together ECT some years ago was not that such dialogue should not exist or that real consensus on many issues was impossible from the outset, but that the consensus reached affirmed agreement in the gospel, while acknowledging disagreement on justification, merit, purgatory, indulgences and the redemptive intercession of anyone other than Christ. Yes, in step with other recent agreements. Here it is only the evangelicals who have moved. accepting the view that justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone is not essential for the gospel on quote. Now I ask you, will you voice your defiant flag? My beloved Protestant brothers, if we do not recognize the above Roman Catholic statement as serious corruption of the fundamentals of our biblical faith and the only true gospel. How we have fallen. If we hold essentially the same doctrine of our Protestant forefathers, because we believe it is biblical and since the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the Council of Trent written in the fifteen hundred to foster the counter-reformation. How could a dramatic shift in the relationship of Protestants to the Roman Catholic Church, plainly visible in many of our fellow evangelicals, possibly be warranted? Alas, unwarranted or not, it has happened. The times, they are a-changing, and this ecumenical earthquake ought to shake us out of our lethargy. Will we stand firm against this measure of apostasy or collapse with our unstable fellows? Are we still willing to identify with Luther, Knox, Calvin, the historic Reformed Confessions, and more recently with Hodge, Spurgeon, Dabney, and Lloyd-Jones in their intense and principled opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and its dangerous apostasy? Consider Lloyd-Jones charged with all, and I close with this. This is the last paragraph or so from his excellent sermon on Roman Catholicism, which is included as an appendix to this paper. I recommend highly read the whole sermon. But listen to this. Lloyd-Jones says, 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 four square 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 it's true 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. The 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. Amen. Let's pray.