Lord's Days, we're gonna try to make it through two paragraphs today. I guess we did two paragraphs in the last three Lord's Days, so we did accomplish that feat. Really proud of myself, right? This is terrible. We have one day to make it through two paragraphs, and so we will have to be rather brief and fly high, as they say, at like, you know, 30,000 feet, and then descend maybe at a few particular points Chapter 26 on the church, we have seen the universality or the catholicity of the church in paragraph one. We've talked somewhat about that aspect of the church that gains visibility, the visible saints there in paragraph two. Today we're going to look at Briefly, paragraph three and four, I think the titles that we gave them in your handout were the perpetuity of the church, that it continues on in this world in spite of its difficulties, and the authority of the church, which is going to set us up for the following weeks when Ryan comes and talks to us about paragraphs five, five, six, seven, eight, nine, I believe. So we have five weeks, five Lord's Days next month. So paragraph three, the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error. And some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, Christ always hath had and ever shall have a kingdom in this world to the end thereof of such as believe in him and make profession of his name. Paragraph four says the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner. Neither 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 church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming? Now there's much to edify us and encourage us and instruct us in these two particular paragraphs, and we have alluded to and referred to paragraph three at several points as we looked at paragraphs one and two. We've talked about how churches are made up of professing believers or visible saints. And we are aiming for, we talked about last time, the idea of a regenerate church membership, all the while knowing that we cannot say with any kind of exactness, yes, we know everybody that's a visible saint is in fact regenerate. We can't say that. We can't look into the soul of a person in that regard. But by way of their profession, by way of their practice, we can make the assessment that they are indeed visible saints. So the goal is for that regenerate church. The goal is for a pure church. But we know that churches are not what? They're not pure, all right? They're not fully perfect in that regard. There's a picture of the pure church in heaven. When we're all there with the Lord in the future, it will be a pure church. We will see him. We'll be, as John says in 1 John 3, we will be pure as he is pure. Anyone who has this hope in him does what now? We purify ourselves even as he is pure. But we know even now there is much sin that needs to be gotten rid of in our individual lives. And hence, as we just put centers together, what happens? There's just a compounding of more and more sin. So the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error. You notice some texts there that are mentioned 1 Corinthians chapter 15, Revelation 2 and 3. The churches in the book of Revelation and chapters 2 and 3 were called what? They were called churches. And the ones that abandoned Christ and left the faith were eventually called synagogues of Satan. But even the church in Corinth, that in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, that's one of the proof texts there, some are denying the doctrine of the resurrection. Yet the church is still called a what? It's still called a church. Revelation 2 and 3 presents us with seven churches that are all called churches. Some, though, do degenerate to become synagogues of Satan, but Christ, the encouragement here is, Christ always will have a kingdom in this world that consists of those that believe in him and make profession of his name. The church has a sense of perpetuity. It will continue on. And then in paragraph four, we notice the opening phrase, speaking about the headship of Christ, Christ is the head of the church. He is the only rightful head of the church, and the church can only have one head. We're going to be looking, Lord willing, next month, as we're wrapping up 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 today, the plan is next month I'll be preaching out of Ephesians chapter 4 for those five Sundays for us. I think verses 1 to 16. One of the texts in Ephesians chapter 4 speaks about Christ being the head of the church. So my intention is to take a whole sermon to preach about Christ as the head of the church. In lieu of that, we're going to kind of somewhat breeze past that today. I want to get to the last phrase in paragraph 4. And this is the one that always seems to make everybody's ears perk up just a little bit. And if you happen to bring, you know, your Catholic relatives with you to church today, you're sitting there thinking, oh, we really should have skipped this Sunday. This doesn't, dinner's gonna be really fun tonight, all right? Well, let's just see what happens. It says, neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense behead thereof. But 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? I alluded in the email, maybe you got last night, that we were going to be focusing in on a particular phrase. I talked to Jason earlier. He called it clickbait that I threw in the email. I didn't know the cool, fun phrase, but that was the clickbait, I suppose. We're going to talk about the Pope as Antichrist. So this seems to cause a problem, just a wee little problem, all right? causes such a problem for some that they take exception to this particular phrase in this paragraph, even though they might even come and say that they fully subscribe the confession of faith. In other words, some look at this statement and say, you know, I don't really like that, I'm gonna qualify that, I'm gonna get rid of that, but I'm still a robust, full subscriptionist. This year, a commentary on the confession has come out. It's been written by, it's an edited document. Every chapter is written by someone else. Sam Waldron, who I have, you know, regard for in many ways, makes this comment regarding this particular phrase. He says, many who hold staunchly to the 1689 Confession doubt the value of the dogmatism regarding the Pope being the Antichrist. This writer is among these. Such doubts are commonly viewed as consistent with full subscription to the Confession. This is one of those statements which might be qualified in the Confession. Now with all the regard I have for Sam Walter, and I would disagree with Sam at that point, But his statement he made here in 2022 that I just read to you is better than the statement that he made in 1989 when he said in his first edition of the Commentary on the Confession that this is one of those statements which should probably be deleted in a revision of the Confession. So my hope is is that in those, what, 30 years, 30 plus years, he's decided not to delete it but to qualify it maybe a few more years, and he'll just embrace the entire thing. That'd be fine. One of the problems he has with this particular statement is not that he's a friend of Rome, and I want to make sure we say that. He's not trying to support Rome. He simply believes that there is, out of exegetical conviction, he says, that the statement in the confession is without adequate biblical basis. Well, As I understand it, to fully subscribe the confession of faith means to hold and subscribe to every doctrine in the confession. In other words, you can't deny the Pope as Antichrist and still fully subscribe the confession of faith. Full subscription exceptions are often all the rage, and we're having all kinds of conversations on social media and different conferences and things about this these days. People take exception to the Pope as Antichrist, people take exception to elect infants dying in infancy being regenerated, people take exception to the doctrine of the Sabbath, people take exception to the the clear teaching and the confession on cessationism, yet still want to come and say, I fully subscribe the confession of faith. Well, you can't be anti-sabbatarian continuationists. I'm trying to find how to string all that together. You can't take exceptions like every turn and still call yourself fully confessional. Well, my point is not to talk about full subscription today. It's simply to say that this is one of the sections, one of the paragraphs, one of the statements of the confession that causes quite a bit of trouble even amongst reform folk today. Now what's interesting about that is that that kind of thinking would have caught our Baptist forebearers, and in fact the whole of our Reformed tradition, by surprise. It would have caught them rather off guard because there would have been no problem whatsoever making these kinds of statements in the 17th century when our confession was written. The confession puts both of these paragraphs, I want you to notice, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4, with a text from 2 Thessalonians as their proof text. So turn in your Bible, if you would, with me to 2 Thessalonians chapter two. If you have the confession there with you as well, you'll notice that in paragraph three, the middle section, remember I mentioned a few weeks back that you wanna pay attention to where the semicolons are, they break the sections up. Paragraph three is broken into three sections with the use of two semicolons. The first section, the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, that's section one, you see a semicolon there. And some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ but synagogues of Satan, that's section two, and then the rest is section three. That middle section, about the degeneration of what were once true churches, now being synagogues of Satan, that middle section has a couple of texts as proof texts. One is Revelation 18.2, which is out of the text about Babylon, the great city, has fallen. And in the Revelation, Babylon, the great city, is interpreted for us in Revelation chapter 11 as Jerusalem, the city where Christ was crucified. Also, 2 Thessalonians 2, 11 and 12 are used to talk about churches that have degenerated to become synagogues of Satan, even though the phrase synagogue of Satan is not used in really either one of those texts. The phrase synagogue of Satan comes there in Revelation chapter 2 and 3. But also, paragraph four uses the context there of 2 Thessalonians as its proof text for this last section dealing with the Pope of Rome. 2 Thessalonians 2, verses two through nine. And just, let's see if I can find it, just to kind of you know, give you a little bit of perspective on are we, you know, are we barking up a tree with no cat, all right? Does the Roman Church even make these kinds of claims about the papacy, all right? This is just a couple of statements from papal documents themselves. One is from, actually I think both of these are from Vatican I. The first Vatican Council toward the end of the 19th century, most of us are more familiar with Vatican II back in the 1960s which tried to put a nice veneer on Rome to make it kind of look much more accepting of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy and even, pagan religions in the world. Vatican I, though, makes this comment that the Pope is the, quote, visible head of the whole church. Now, what they're trying to indicate there is that Christ is the head of the church, invisible in heaven, but with the visible aspect of the church needing some kind of structural organization, we have to have what? We have to have somebody at the head of it, and that's going to be the pope. They also say in Vatican I, the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ. And we use that word vicar a lot, all right? Vicar, one who stands in the place of. We speak about the vicarious atonement. That's a term more familiar to us. Or the substitutionary atonement, one who stands in our place. So the pope as the vicar of Christ is standing in the place of Christ. Keep that in your mind. We read through 2 Thessalonians here in just a moment. The Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule, and govern the universal church. This, taken from 882 in the Catholic Catechism, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman pontiff, by reason of his office as vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. It's not hard to find statements in the papal documents that substantiate those kinds of claims. Matt? I'm not sure. I tend to think that his headship is for the visible church on earth, maintaining some sense of greater supremacy for Christ as head. I mean, trying to give the benefit of the doubt there or whatever, that Christ has no problem exercising his headship in heaven. It's on earth. We need some visibility to this thing, so we've gotta have a guy. But that's, I mean, Begs the question, doesn't it? It's a good question. And because you start calling this guy head and call this guy head, you have to do, you have to use head in two totally different ways. And abusing head in the way that it, you know, it's like princess bride thoughts are coming to mind right now. You know, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. But yeah, it's a good question. Any princess bride fans? Can this merge actually happen? Oh, good. Look at that. I was just trying to make sure I didn't just kill the merge. And so, you know, it's like dead right there. And my son is sitting there going, aren't you going to mention Nacho Libre, Dad? No, I'm not. Yeah, I know. I don't think I'm holy enough to watch that movie. It's a good laugh. Yeah, I like that. OK. Anyway, I can see the merge just crumbling right now. It's just like it's almost over. I've lost everybody. All right. Where was I? I have no earthly idea. Yes, head. Okay. So we're not barking up the proverbial tree with no cat. There is a cat, and it's a cat. It's not a lion. It's a cat, all right? And let's see what we can do. make sure you don't go climb in the tree too. Second Thessalonians chapter 2. I want to read verses 1 to 11. Again, keep in mind verse 1 is not mentioned in the proofs, but just because a text doesn't mention the proofs doesn't mean they're not thinking. The context of every text in the Bible is the whole Bible. I mean, we're kind of there, right? If you're going You've got to interpret the text within the context, and the broad context for every text is the whole Bible. So there are other verses, and we're going to mention some of these in a moment, that are informing our confessional writers, by the way, who are at one with the Savoyans and the Presbyterians on this particular issue here. So let's read verses 1 to 11. Now we request of you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed and the son of destruction who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called God or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of his coming. That is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness. Now there are other texts that are informing the conclusions of our confessional writers and helping them draw the conclusion that This is pointing to what grew historically and became known as the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church and most concentratedly in the papacy. Other texts are found in Daniel 7, and 9, and 11. And we're going to turn and read those from Daniel, but you can go and turn later to Daniel 7, and Daniel 9, and Daniel 11, where it will talk about this idea of lawlessness, and one who will rise up, and one who will set himself up in the temple. Revelation, chapter 18, we mentioned that already about the fall of Babylon, the great city. Revelation 19, which speaks about Christ descending from heaven with a sword coming out of his mouth. There's this image that's also here in 2 Thessalonians 2 about Christ coming to slay him with the brightness of his coming. Or you might look in Revelation chapter 20. I do want us to turn though to 1 John. Look over to the little epistle of 1 John. I think it's important to keep in mind that the only one writing about this at this particular time in the history of the church is not just the Apostle Paul. Jesus himself has alluded to things like this in the Gospels, but the Apostle John also writes about the coming of various individuals or movements that will stand against Christ. They'll be characterized to rightly bear the moniker Antichrist and It even lends itself to the idea of a particular individual who we might even consider like a capital A type Antichrist. Maybe this will culminate in a figure toward the end of time that Christ will destroy when he returns. The term Antichrist itself is used in the Bible by John. It's not used by Paul here in 2 Thessalonians. You might have been thinking, I don't see Antichrist in there, right? No, the term is not there, but the concept is clearly there. 1 John 2, let's start there. 1 John 2, verse 18. Can somebody, let me just, we'll pass these out. 1 John 2, 18, who can do that? Hey, Josh? 1 John 2, 22. Toronto? 1 John 4, 3. Garrett, I'm gonna get these down. I got that memory lapse that happens like every seven days, and so I'm hanging on for just a few more hours. Gotta get a reminder here. 2 John 7. 2 John 7, Tom. Okay, so let's start with 1 John 2, 18. We don't have time to make a lot of comments about these, but just want you to kind of get the feel for what's happening here, what's he warning the people about. 1 John 2. 18 Josh that you good and loud and so All right, thank you sir So even in John's day What had already appeared? Antichrist had already appeared. They were already coming. Makes me think of the text in No, but that's one too, yeah. But I'm thinking about the passage in Peter, or Timothy, where Paul says that false prophets, false teachers, are going to arise in these last days, all right? And Peter mentions these as well, and then Jude comes along and says, they're here, all right? They're already here. 1 John 2.22, who had that one? Drumroll, please. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Okay, so here, to be antichrist is to be against Christ, it's to be a liar, it's to be trying to deny Jesus being the Christ, denying the Father, denying the Son. 1 John 4.3. coming yet now is present all right so he kind of holds both these ideas together and second John second John 7 those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming Okay, so we've got in all of these, we've got this idea of deception, of lying, of denying Christ, of standing against Christ. It's not just one person. It's many deceivers are going out into the world. It's those who are standing opposed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Now go back over to 2 Thessalonians for a moment. I think what Paul is speaking to in 2 Thessalonians and what John is speaking to in 1 John and 2 John and what Jesus alludes to in the Gospels and what Daniel prophesies about back in Daniel 7 and 9 and 11 and what John writes about in the Revelation or what Jesus writes about in the Revelation to his servant John. These are all what? These are all like multiply different things. They're all overlapping realities about within the context of the church, there are going to arise people who are against Christ, deny Christ, stand against him, and this will ultimately culminate in history in a particular individual who will be destroyed by Christ, the brightness of his coming. It's a woefully inadequate summary of what's going on there in the text, all right? Coming back to Second Thessalonians, just a couple things to kind of mention about this, all right? Kind of using Second Thessalonians as the main grid, there's a paper you should have with you. It's on the back table. Look for papers on the back table. Anybody have one of these? Anybody not have one? Paul, Michelle, could you guys grab the stack? I think it's on the far right-hand side. This is called Antichrist Stormed by Benjamin Keech. I want you to have it. Don't start reading it yet. We're going to work through that together, all right? But in 2 Thessalonians, I want you to think about a few just highlights about this idea of this man of lawlessness, this son of destruction, the mystery of lawlessness, or the King James refers to him, the NAS is the man of lawlessness there in verse 3. The King James has the man of sin. Maybe you've heard that phrase before. The work of this Antichrist, the work of this one who is lawless and against Christ and against God, is a work that is done, Paul is saying here, it's a work that is done within the context of the local church. This is not just some political ruler. It's like separate from the ecclesial setting. Notice what it says back in verses one and two. Now we request you brethren with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or disturbed. Why would they be shaken? Why would they be disturbed? Because what had come to them was a spirit or a message or a letter. Paul is getting wind of the idea that letters or people, teachers, may be coming to Thessalonica and leading them astray, and specifically it's in regard to the day of the Lord that has come. Let no one in any way deceive you So what I'm trying to speak to here is that the danger is something that is because of something rising up within the context of the church. Hold your finger there for a moment. Look over in the book of Jude. All the way back to the back right before Revelation you get the book of Jude. Though Paul doesn't use the verbiage of Jude, I think the idea is very much the same. Jude verse three, Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you, appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have done what? They have crept in. Unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ. Jude is alarmed because he's heard that people have crept into the church. John writes there in 1 John chapter three and chapter four, chapter four he says, don't believe every what? Don't believe every spirit, but test them, test the teachers that come. So if you think they're in 1 John, oh, let me see. I think it's in 4. It's 4.1. Yes. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. Test the spirits. Does this mean that, like, little ghosts? have come into the churches, little cloudy spirits like Casper or whatever, they're like floating in. That'd be pretty easy to spot, wouldn't it? I mean, if false teachers floated around like Casper, you would be able to pick those guys out pretty quick. Did you hear the language? Do not believe every spirit. That's exactly what we just read by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. We're concerned that you might be disturbed by a what? A spirit. Are there little ghosts floating around Thessalonica? No, these are false spirits. These are demons. These are demonic spirits that infiltrate the churches through what? False teachers. Happens all the time. Happens today, happened then. The whole concept here that antichrists are about and attacking within the church is still present. What does Paul say to the elders in Acts chapter 20? Some are gonna rise up from where? from your own midst, all right? So we need to be like those Bereans, right, in Acts 17, testing the things that are taught by the word of God. So back to 2 Thessalonians. The work of this Antichrist or these Antichrists is in the context of the local church. They set themselves up in Christ's church. They set themselves up in Christ's temple. They set themselves up in God's rightful place. They demand obedience. They demand reverence. They demand worship. You know what's interesting? I didn't bring a lot of these quotes, but we could find them readily. In the Roman Catholic Church, you are required to give absolute submission to the teaching of the church. You can't make up your own idea. You can't, remember that line? I love the old black and white Luther movie, which you'll find out is one of my favorite movies or whatever. I love to watch that around Reformation Day. And we have this little line where Luther's going back and forth with one of the priests that is above him, and he's like, well, The priest is like, well, what if every boy had his own copy of the Bible? And Luther says, well, we might have more Christians, Father. And the Catholic Church is terrified about this idea that you're going to be thinking for yourself, and you're going to be reading the Word of God and testing what is being said. That's just out of bounds. They often deceive, here he says, with false signs and false wonders. that this manifests itself over time in Rome and coalesces in the papacy as expressed in our confession. Again, the same with the Savoy and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Our brother Jim Renahan notes, quote, reflects the unanimous consent of the Reformed Churches, the unanimous consent of the Reformed Churches. We could just bring up confession after confession after confession that highlights Rome as Antichrist. Just take my word for it. You do not need to grant that to your pastors. Just take my word for it. Pun intended. Take my word for it. You don't need to just take my word for it. You need to test all that is said by the Word of God. Don't become skeptical. I mean, that just makes you jaded, and that just makes you bitter. But test. Test what is said by the Word of God. And fortunately, we have a confession, too. What a blessing. Fortunately, we have an association of churches. What a blessing. You know, Ryan and I decide to just go, you know, off book, like range chickens, just running out there like crazy things with our heads cut off. You have recourse. You're not just at the mercy of a man ever. Richard Bauckham in his book Tudor Apocalypse makes this comment He said, regarding the English post-Reformation martyrs, that they meant that the Church of the Pope, by its behavior and its doctrine, was taking the devil's side. That by acting against Christ, it was identifying itself as an historical manifestation of the great company of the reprobate. And moreover, that by doing so in certain ways, it was identifying itself as the worst and last such manifestation. Christopher Hill, I didn't bring the book today, I meant to, has written a book on the Antichrist in 17th century England. It's a very interesting little book. And Christopher Hill makes the comment, and I don't think Hill's a Christian. Just from what I've read in the book, I don't get the impression that Hill's a Christian. He's just trying to approach this as a historian. He makes this comment though, he says, that in Puritan religious culture, disagreement with the common view of this identity, that the Pope was Antichrist, was often the first indicator of unorthodoxy. And it might get you labeled soon as an Arminian, all right, which was something you didn't want to be back then. I'm sorry? He said that the Puritan religious culture, in Puritan religious culture, disagreement with this view that the Pope was Antichrist is the first indicator that you may indeed be into an unorthodox position. Now I want to read to you, I hope you have this little paper, Antichrist Storm. This is just kind of highlighting something from one of our Baptist forebearers, Benjamin Keech, a signer of our confession. And I've edited this somewhat, this is not his whole book, this is just like a one part. He's going through a lot of different texts in the Bible showing how they're pointing to the papacy as the most clear expression of this view. Notice the opening line there, "'Tis also evident that all the marks of the man of sin," and that's the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, all the marks of the man of sin spoken of by Paul do agree exactly to the Pope and the Roman Church. So before I think one can make the claim that there's just no exegetical basis for this kind of teaching whatsoever, I think one has to wrestle with Works like Keatsch's, and he's not alone, there are many works in this period that are addressing from an exegetical standpoint how they're concluding that the Pope and the papacy and the Roman Church is what Paul's referring to, also John, and the book of Revelation. He gives four ways to tell. He kind of analyzes this by four different ways. He was to rise, that is this man of sin, this man of lawlessness. Number one, he was to rise after there came a falling away from the primitive faith. Verse three, that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed. Now this cannot mean, Keech says, a particular falling away, but a general apostasy of the church from the holy and apostolical doctrine and discipline of the gospel, or such a falling away that should be obvious and visible to all. In other words, this isn't something that just would have happened in a corner. You know, one church has somebody who does something wrong. This is something much more comprehensive. He goes on in the middle of the paragraph, "...and now it is well known that there happened this falling away," or general apostasy, "...three or four hundred years after Christ, out of which and soon after which falling away," this should be the Pope, "...the Pope showed himself to be this man of sin, nor did he arise till the apostasy happened in the world." What's he connecting this to? What's happening three or four hundred years after the time of the apostles? What do you know about church history that might happen about three or four hundred years after this biblical period? Yes, but what is it? What event that everybody would have known about? Okay, the Council of Nicaea, that gets us in the general ballpark. Okay, who is it that called the Council of Nicaea? Do you remember that? Man he's thinking great. I had to say something now. He's gonna make me talk again Constantine calls the council of Nicaea what else happens in the fourth century the Empire finally becomes what? Yeah, let's make sure we say it like this Okay, it's a massive air quotes on the Christian thing all right and Constantine comes around in the early 4th century, declares Christianity to be what he calls a licit religion. It's legitimate, it's legal now. By the end of the 4th century, under Theodosius the emperor, we now have Christianity as the official religion of the empire. That's what Keats is referring to. The change that happens in the 4th century with the Christianization or the founding of Christendom, and it's really, in his mind, it's like the un-Christianizing of the church. It's not a good thing. Now we have the state and the church together. You would expect him to say things like that as a Baptist. So, let's look on. Okay, there's not a time for everything. Okay, number two. Another mark he hath is this. He shall exalt himself above all that is called God, to be compared with magistrates and rulers as kings and emperors, for these are also called gods. Psalm 82, verse six. If you look back in 2 Thessalonians, this is in verse four. who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called God or object of worship. And you might have a little footnote in your Bible, another way to translate that, every so-called God is everyone who is called God. All right? In other words, this man of sin, this man of lawlessness, is going to exalt himself above every known authority among men. This is exactly what happens in the papacy, in the history of the church. They may not be exercising that kind of rule and power today, because if you look through church history in the medieval period and the rise of the popes and how they now crown emperors and things such as that, and they have authority over the Holy Roman Empire, They don't have that today, because they just can't quite get there. It's not because they don't want it. Well, let's turn to the back, and let's look at number three real quick. The man of sin is said by the apostles, so also exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped as God, sitting in the temple of God, showing himself to be God. Keech goes on, even so the Pope makes himself like God and as God, as the King of Babylon of old said, I will be like the most high, Isaiah 14, 14, which may very well be a reference to the fall of Satan himself. There's another text very similar to that in the book of Ezekiel. And as God's place of residence of old was said to be in the temple of Jerusalem, so he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, not in the material temple, but in the spiritual temple. What is that? The church. The church of God, which is so-called. And you can look in 1 Peter 2 to see the church referred to in that temple-like language. The apostle speaks of him as a bishop who had a seat and the Popish writers give the Pope that and such like titles. Again, not hard to find those kinds of titles given to the Pope. One final thing here. The man of sin to said could not get up until that which then, i.e. in the apostles days, did let or was taken away. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work only he Probably some copy error here. Will let until it be taken away which was the heathen emperor government of the sixth head of the beast. Let's read this. This also shows the Pope to be the man of sin, for he rose to his glory and wicked grandeur, not till the sixth head or pagan power was gone or taken out of the way. For though the mystery of iniquity did work gradually and corruptions crept into the church early, yet did he not appear till after the Christian emperors had made way for him. Hence, he is said to be an eighth. and of the seven. Now the eights and the sevens and things like that go back to Daniel, talks about horns and little crowns and those powers that are raised up. But here what he's talking about is this corruption is coming into the church, but you can't really see it as long as the pagan emperors were like suppressing the church in persecution. But once the emperors do what? Once the emperors become Christian, then this makes way for the corruptions in the church to begin to grow. I show you this just to say that there is exegetical work being done. You may not agree with all the exegetical work of Keats, that's not the point. There are others that are also doing exegetical work, trying to establish some kind of an understanding of what's happening in their day. using 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 to help them understand that. When I mentioned that Keech is just one among several, other writers, Puritans, I think it was Oh, I forget the guy's name. Crawford Gribbon, who is an Irish particular Baptist, a confessional brother, has written a book called The Puritan Millennium, and I don't see my quote from that, but he quotes Bishop Usher. Bishop Usher was from Ireland, and he was a leading Puritan of the day. And Usher makes the comment that the idea that the Pope is Antichrist was axiomatic for the Puritans, all right? Just like across the board, there was very little, if any, disagreement there. William Perkins identifies the Pope in this way. Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, Wycliffe, Huss, you might imagine, they're burning the guy at the stake. He's probably going to not think that the Pope is a great guy. There's an interesting interchange between Gregory, who is the Bishop of Rome, and John, who is the Bishop of Constantinople that I want us to kind of end on today and think about for a moment. And I don't have this all printed up for you, so I'm going to read a little bit. I'll try to break it up and highlight certain aspects. Before I do that, though, questions? comments kind of where we are. Tom. As somebody who has a long job of trying to teach 1689 to people from various Protestant backgrounds and some Catholic backgrounds, The statement that the confession makes that the Pope is the Antichrist often is a stumbling block for many, many people. And they want to subscribe to the whole thing, but they hate that phrase. And yet, I think you did very well in presenting it today, because it is so true. And confession is not the confession if you take that out. It is absolutely. I mean, otherwise, your faith is a kind of two-headed monster created by Romans. They will only say, well, we don't say that Christ is not the head of the church. We just say the pope is the head of the church on earth. That is such an abomination to the truth of the gospel. And so I thank all the people down to our age and our generation now who have maintained that that part of confession must remain in the confession. Other comments or thoughts? Yeah, Ryan. I think there's, on the one hand, we see a lot of, in church history, kind of, anti-papal sentiment, and sometimes it can get kind of reach a deeper pitch. And yet I know, you know, as we're thinking of like how can you share something like this and try to win Catholics or Romanists to the fame, you know, there's a lot of examples of that too. I think of William Perkins, he has a book called The Reformed Catholic. And it's a very loving but honest attempt at our differences, but also a call for love. And I know Peter Barret has things like that, and I think there's a way to... We kind of don't have to hide... if it's the truth, but you can also present it in a way of, we believe this and we love you, we want you to come out of that false church. Just because we read things like this, it doesn't mean we necessarily have to adopt this posture of absolute hatred or something like that. We hate the sin, we hate the false man of sin and things like that, but we can still love them and hopefully win them over. Yeah, sure. Absolutely. Let me end by talking about Gregory, who was the Bishop of Rome in the 6th century, and a man by the name of John, who was the Bishop of Constantinople. Now by this particular point in the history of the church, there has been a power shift. A power shift from Rome in the west to Constantinople in the east, right? Rome was the city that was like the chief central point of the Roman Empire. And it had been for centuries, even prior to the coming of Christ. Founded by Romulus and his brother, you know, back what, 3rd, 4th century BC, somewhere in there, a long time before. By the time we get to the 4th, 5th century, Rome begins to crumble. Rome is attacked by various groups. They break the city walls. Eventually, Rome falls, and Rome's demise leads to a power shift that's moving toward the east. John finds himself as the Bishop of Constantinople. And John declares himself to be the universal bishop, or the universal priest. He wants to have a position of primacy over all other bishops. Well, this awakens Gregory to write some letters. He writes some letters to John. And he writes some letters to another man by the name of Mauritius Augustus, who was the emperor of the Roman Empire in Constantinople at the time. This is taken from his letter to John. If you want to look this up later on, this is, let's see, what book is this out of? This is out of book, is it five? It's book four. It's Epistle 18. You can look these up probably online. Here is what Gregory says to him. For what are all thy brethren, the bishops of the universal church, but stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men as if amid the shades of night? And when thou desirest to put thyself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with thine, what else dost thou say? But I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of the heavens. It's right there out of that text that we just read a moment ago from Keech, quoting Isaiah. He's telling John, you're guilty of this old satanic sin. Are not all the bishops together clouds who both reign in the words of preaching and glitter in the light of good works? And when your fraternity despises them, and you would fain press them down under yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds? All these things when I behold with tears and tremble at the hidden judgments of God, my fears are increased and my heart cannot contain its groans. For that this most holy man, the Lord John, he speaks very highly of John, of so great abstinence and humility has through the seduction of familiar tongues. In other words, he's hinting here that John is surrounded by some people who are flattering him. And John's problem is he's listened to the people who are puffing him up. And so he's embraced this title. Yeah. Through the seduction of familiar tongues, you've broken out into such a pitch of pride as to attempt, in his coveting of that wrongful name, to be like him who, while proudly wishing to be like God, lost even the grace of the likeness granted to him, and because he sought false glory, thereby forfeited true blessedness. Who is that? That's the devil, that's Satan. He's putting John in some pretty sketchy company, all right? Certainly, he says, Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? He's denying any kind of universal power to one bishop over all the bishops. And, to bind all together, he says, and the saints before the law, this was interesting, the saints under the law, and the saints under grace. The saints before Moses, the saints under Moses, the saints in the new covenant, like all the elect of God type thing, all right. He says, all these making up the Lord's body. Gregory, good confessional man, sounds good. And then he says, we're constituted as members of the church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy. Was it not the case, oh, I missed this phrase, excuse me, let me go back. After he speaks of Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, all heads of particular communities. He then says this, all these making up, there it is, I'm sorry. And yet all these were members under, Peter, Andrew, James, and John, were all members under one what? One head. One head. It's a great place to mention Peter as the head of the church. What a missed opportunity. He blew that one. He must have just forgotten. Was it not the case, as your fraternity knows, that the prelates of this apostolic see, that is Rome, which by the providence of God I serve, I'm the bishop of Rome, we had the honor offered us of being called universal by the venerable council of Chalcedon. This is a long story here, but in 451, there was a council known as the Council of Chalcedon that met in Chalcedon. It's amazing how that is. To address the issue of Utiquitism. Eutychius was a man who was kind of another Christological heresy, like Nestorianism or Apollinarianism, different kinds of things. And Eutychianism is addressed at this council. And one of the things that really helps them address Eutychianism is a letter written by Leo, who was the Bishop of Rome. And the council is so thankful to Leo and to the Bishop for Rome and to Rome itself that they attribute as a council this honorary title to the Bishop of Rome as universal. But listen to what Gregory says about this. But yet not one of them, none of the bishops of Rome has ever wished to be called by such a title. We don't want the title. or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity that might seem to have denied it to all of his brethren." Now, I've got to skip a couple of letters here. Let me see if I can get back here. This is, that's a letter he writes to John. Here's a letter that he writes to, Mauritius, Augustus, the emperor in the 6th century, the emperor of the Roman Empire, but he was in Constantinople. Here's what he says. Pardon. I have, however, taken care to admonish earnestly the same, my brother and fellow bishop, that if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. As to this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offense ought not to be engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial piety. You can hear O King live forever, right? I beseech your imperial piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless and others exceedingly harmful. He's been encouraged by some to just say, this is just frivolous, this is petty, leave it alone, quit messing with this. And he says, yeah, some things are frivolous, need to be left alone, but other things that are frivolous need to be addressed because they're harmful. So he says, is it not the case that when Antichrist comes, and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous and yet exceedingly pernicious." Did you hear that? He has just brought the subject of Antichrist into the conversation. And it's right out of 2 Thessalonians that he's doing this. It's the language. Let me read it again. Is it not the case that when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous and yet exceedingly pernicious? Recall what we just did. We just studied 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 John chapter 2 and 3 and 4. 2 Thessalonians 2 does not use the term Antichrist, right? John does, though. And we tried to put those two things together. That's exactly what Gregory's doing here. And that was not uncommon in the early church to find that kind of understanding of Second Thessalonians speaking about an anti-Christian type movement or ruler. If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables. But if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. You can do a lot of damage with just a few words, right? Guys, you've found that out, haven't you, in talking to your wives over the years? You can do a lot of damage, just a couple. Open your mouth, just a couple. All you tried to say was a couple of words, and it's over. It's over. Some of you are smiling. You know what I'm talking about. Your wives are nodding. They're like, I know what you're talking about. All right. I digress. Sorry. Now, I confidently say. This is so good. I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called universal priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist. It goes on. I have no problem affirming this paragraph, that the Pope is that antichrist, that man of sin, that man of lawlessness, that son of perdition, setting himself up against God and against Christ because there's only one head. There's only one head in the church, in heaven or on earth, only one head, and that's Christ. I hope you can affirm that. You probably do affirm that. I hope you can affirm it maybe even more clearly after having looked at that a little more today. There's so much more to talk about, but again, we are out of time. And so please be praying for Ryan as he comes to carry us one into the pulpit today to preach, but also as he takes up the confession for us over the next month. There's a lot of stuff in those next five paragraphs And so keep him in your prayers for that. Let's pray together. Father, we thank you. We bless you. We ask, oh God, that you would help us even now to humble ourselves under the Lord Jesus Christ. May we honor him today in worship as the one singular head of the church. Father, we ask that you would make much of your son make much of his name, make much of his work, make much today, God, of the love with which he has loved us. Indeed, you have demonstrated your love in such profound ways by giving him to us as a propitiation for our sins. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. He who is our only head, All glory be to Christ alone. We pray in his name. Amen.