15 comments on “Is your church aligned with the World Council of Churches?

  1. Canadian says:

    Wait a minute. Your Presbyterian. Only the Pope is the antichrist, right?

  2. Long story short, I am undecided on it. Most of the ancient church thought antichrist would be a Jew from the tribe of Dan. I lean towards that theory. The only problem is that most “Danites” disappared after the dispersions.

  3. The internet helped me find this, as I contemplated your post here, Jacob:

    “First, John argues that Antichrist is not some mysterious individual who is only and finally revealed in the last days. In fact, John says just the opposite. Whatever (or whoever) the Antichrist is, it (or he or she as the case may be) was already present at the time of John’s writing. John expressly states that the spirit of Antichrist, “even now is already in the world” (1 Jn 4:3b). As B. B. Warfield points out, “John makes this assertion with the utmost emphasis. This thing, he says ‘is now in the world already.'” (5) The Antichrist is a present reality for John. So while much of the current discussion about Antichrist isolates his appearance to the distant days immediately before the end, John instead describes him as a foe already existing when the epistle was written. In fact, writes John, “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour” (1 Jn 2:18). The very presence of Antichrist is clearly an indication that the last hour has indeed already come. And since Antichrist was present in John’s own lifetime, we can only conclude that we have been in the last hour since John composed his epistle. Therefore, we cannot ignore the present reality of Antichrist if we are to heed John’s warning.”



  4. Historically, Presbyterians, and virtually all Protestants, have identified the papacy as the antichrist. That did not preclude them recognising others as antichrist (not the lack of a definite article). For more on this, listen to the Revd Stephen Dilday:


  5. Edit: “note the lack of a definite article”.

  6. olivianus says:

    I have to agree with reformedcovenanter. The Roman papacy is THE anti-christ. Not just an anti-christ. However, it can still be said that Rome’s daughters are anti-christ in a generic sense. Just as the Son naturally extends from the Father’s nature eternally, Rome’s whore churches extend from her naturally bearing her whorish nature.

    • DCF says:

      That’s an interesting angle. I always thought, even in my protestant days, that protestants were the historical offspring of Rome. I’m guessing you’ve got something else in mind though.

    • Canadian says:

      Was that generic or numeric? One antichrist or whoever we want it to be?????
      We know who Rome’s daughters are now don’t we. Who begat protestants again?
      Luther and Calvin’s eisegesis about the pope being antichrist was just historical case building despite your waxing all eloquently Trinitarian to defend such.

      • Was there an argument somewhere in that above comment? I really had trouble figuring out what you were saying, aside from some general statements about how you don’t like Calvin’s conclusions, or something.

      • olivianus says:

        The point is, the Papacy is THE Antichrist, but numerous other churches that have followed the Papacy, especially since V2 are antichrists with a small a in the sense that they are lead by and coadjutants with the Papacy.

      • I think anti-christ is not bound by the office of pontiff…anti-christ shows up other places, imho

      • Canadian says:

        Just a little unholy sarcasm.
        Drake said “However, it can still be said that Rome’s daughters are anti-christ in a generic sense.”
        So I shot back with his/your recent categories (generic/numeric) in mind, wondering about the nebulous use of antichrist you both were employing; seeing I was called to give an account before the judgement seat for the whole of the ancient church’s Theology proper, over on the dyothelitism thread, because of his distaste for what is apparently some nebulous conciliar misuse of those categories. Then he tried to bolster his bull about antichrist with Trinitarian ontology. He goes after nuances of terms and words that he doesn’t like, telling me I pull things out of my ass, fine. Yet the game changes if I call out something I take as an ingenious use of nubulous BS like the “antichrist” stuff above or the Reformed dancing around the NT use of the words “all” or “world” or the evasive maneuvers around St. Paul saying that he disciplines his body lest after he has preached to others he might not himself become reprobate (greek).
        That’s all it was. Now if I was better Orthodox Christian, I wouldn’t have let my passions lead me to exchanges like this….pray for me.

      • Canadian says:

        oops, I wrote ingenious and meant to write disingenious in my last comment.

Comments are closed.