Today’s post represents the third in a series of posts about my time as a student at Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I originally wrote about KTS and the controversy concerning Warren Gage in a 2008 book published by the Trinity Foundation titled Imagining a Vain Thing: The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.
In the ten years that have elapsed since I wrote the book under the guidance of the late Dr. John W. Robbins, my conviction that what I wrote was correct remains unchanged. I stand by the book, all of it.
That said, ten years is time enough for further reflection, and it seemed good to me to write a series of posts to share with readers some of the big-picture lessons that can be taken from the disaster that overtook KTS in the fall of 2007.
A Danger of Unsound Eschatology
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 Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
– Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.6
One of the myths advanced by Dr. Gage during my time at KTS was the idea that the Reformation had little to say about eschatology. In the Introduction to the John-Revelation Project (JRP) Gage makes the following claim, “It is instructive that Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of Revelation, lamenting that a “Revelation” should reveal, and John Calvin, who commented on every other book of the Bible, glaringly omitted commentary on the Apocalypse. The children of the Reformers have fared little better. And it is time to ask why?”
This is statement is propaganda in at least three ways. In the first place, although Luther did question the canonicity of Revelation, in the end he did accept it. Second, Revelation is not the only book John Calvin omitted from his commentary on the Bible. There were a number of books on which Calvin did not comment such as Judges, Ruth, and 1&2 Samuel. Third, there have been numerous commentaries written on Revelation by Protestants. For example, Isaac Newton (yes, that Isaac Newton), John Gill, E.B. Elliott to name just a few. In fact, it probably would shock most early 21st century Protestants just how much has been written by earlier generations of Protestants on Revelation in general and the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in particular.
For example, the statement above is the original wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) when it was published in 1648, but was excised in a 1903 revision of the WCF by the PCUSA – the PCUSA was and is the mainline Presbyterian denomination is the United States – and today it is a rare thing indeed for a Presbyterian church to use a version of the Confession with this language.
In the 1903 revision, the PCUSA replaced the historic language of the Confession with the following, “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of nay man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring the Lord Jesus Christ.
Many years ago when I first began to get serious about studying Reformed theology, I purchased a version of the WCF published by the PCA, a more theologically conservative organization than the PCUSA. The language of 25.6 in their version runs thus, “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.”
The most obvious difference between the original version and its newer counterparts is the identification of the Pope or Rome as “Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition.”
Today it’s considered bad manners and theologically incorrect to call the Pope of Rome Antichrist. But our Protestant forebears were no so ashamed. Consider the following quotes:
- This teaching shows very forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist. He exalts himself above Christ and opposes Him, because he will not allow Christians to be saved without his power, which nevertheless is nothing and is neither ordained nor commanded by God…Just as we cannot worship the devil himself as Lord and God, so we cannot put up with his apostle, the pope, or Antichrist, in his regime as head or lord (Martin Luther, What Luther Says, 34).
- Daniel (Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom (John Calvin, Institutes, 4.2.12).
- Yea, we doubt not to prove the kingdom of the Pope to be the kingdom and power of Antichrist (John Knox).
- This chapter [Revelation 15] is a preparation to the pouring out of the seven vials…and of the destruction of antichrist; and it is said to be a sign “in heaven”, where John was called up, and where he had his visions; and it was “another”, a different one from that in (Revelation 12:1) which represented the downfall of Paganism, but this the downfall of Popery; and it is a very “great” one, it is expressive of great things, as the fall of Babylon the great, or the judgment of the great whore… (John Gill, Commentary on Revelation)
- [S]o the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God’s authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, ad Dominus Deus noster papa – Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terra – Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papae – The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
- It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no same man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name (Charles Spurgeon).
One could multiply such quotes as the sand of the sea, but the sample above should serve to convince the reader that the conviction that the office of the papacy was the Antichrist of the Apostle John was widespread from the dawn of the Reformation until the end of the 19th century.
Today, such convictions is almost never heard. And if it is spoken, it’s done so in a hushed whisper so as not to attract any attention.
One reason for the decline in understanding of the office of the papacy as Antichrist is the success the Jesuit eschatological schemes of preterism and futurism have had in supplanting the source eschatology of the Reformation.
Preterism is the view that the Bible teaches Antichrist came and went in the past and that there is today no Antichrist on earth. It was developed during the Counter-Reformation by Jesuit Luis de Alcazar.
Futurism, on the other hand, holds that Antichrist is yet to come. This program was developed by Jesuit Francisco Ribera and is the majority report among America’s Dispensationalists.
But the historical stance of the Reformation on Antichrist is Historicism. Historicism holds, among other things, that Antichrist has been with us in the past, currently is at work, will be destroyed in the future.
Unsound Eschatology can be just as dangerous as any other unsound doctrine. To the degree Protestants have allowed the Jesuits to do their thinking for them, to the extent Protestants have absorbed the end times theories of the Babylonian Harlot, to that degree they have rendered themselves ineffective soldiers of Christ and set themselves up to be duped by hucksters such as Warren Gage.
(To be continued…)
Lux Lucet 
That is very interesting Steve.
I have been reading Tim Kauffman’s excellent blog at http://www.whitehorseblog.com and biblethumpingwingnut.com. It has opened my eyes to things that I have never thought about before. The whole eschatology scene was very confusing to me before reading Tim. His attention to detail and taking a Scripturalist approach has answered so many questions.
One of the most important lessons is the recognition that the RCC is the anti-Christ and therefore is irredeemable as a system. So when Protestant teachers start wishing for Rome again, it is a sure sign they have lost it, are false teachers, or both. And once I realised the sheer weight of Scripture that deals with this I was amazed at all the implications. Leviticus, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, 2 Thess, Revelation; one starts to understand Romish teaching in songs sung at church, in creeds recited, in sermons preached. The Romish philosophical influence is all through the protestant churches.
One can only wonder at the power of deception that has prevailed during the 20/21st centuries to the present day because this doctrine has been mutilated by the Jesuits as you say above.
The Clark/Robbins understanding again proves true, that the Bible is a whole system. It all fits together as a complete, interconnected set of doctrines.
But we are not in despair as those who have no hope. “One little word shall slay them”.
It’s hard to see how a classic Scripturalist could justify being dogmatic about the pope as the Antichrist…
Not really. John Robbins coined the term and that was his position.
“It’s hard to see how a classic Scripturalist could justify being dogmatic about the pope as the Antichrist…”
Good point. It is hard to see, but by no means impossible.
You will find an excellent attempt at that very thesis over at Tim Kauffman’s blog. I would suggest starting with http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/08/30/the-leviticus-26-protocol/ and reading on the connecting posts from there.
Tim carefully details how Daniel points to the Roman See as the Little Horn. He starts with Scripture and shows the fulfillment convincingly. That is what Scripturalism does.
I read the links. Daniel doesn’t mention Rome, so any knowledge claim regarding the “Roman See” as the Antichrist implies one has extra-Scriptural knowledge… which, for a classic Scripturalist, should cause pause before dogmatic pronouncements such as those given here.
Hi Ryan,
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough. The link above was the first of a series. It is the series that make the argument complete.
Your specific question was raised on Tim’s blog at this post…http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2018/03/11/the-ashes-of-isaac/
If you scroll down to the comments section of that post there is a question asked by Mike on MARCH 12, 2018 AT 12:58 PM. Tim answers Mike’s question (and thus yours). Sorry, but the answer is too long to paste here (about 20 short paragraphs). Tim starts with the Scriptures and then by good and necessary consequence shows the fulfillment of those Scriptures. This is Scripturalism as Clark/Robbins defined it in their writings about the Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, part 6.
If you then take that approach as just outlined and go back to read the linked posts from the Leviticus 26 Protocol, you will see clearly demonstrated the Scripturalist approach to the conclusion that the Roman See is the Anti-Christ of Scripture.
“Or what of Jesus’ prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction after being surrounded with armies (Luke 21:20). Jerusalem’s destruction after the siege is not recorded anywhere in the Scriptures. All we’ve got is the description of the event, and the assurance that it would happen within a generation.”
Doesn’t this beg the question as to the time period in which we are living? How does Tim know he is living past “70 A.D.”?
“I can show the four-way division of the Greek empire from Diodorus Siculus, and his Library of History, Marcus Junianus Justinus and his Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Plutarch and his Life of Demetrius, Appian’s History of the Syrian Wars, Memnon and his History of Heracleia, and many others. But I find not a single reference in the Scriptures to the fulfillment of what Daniel foresaw. Yet I know with certainty that it occurred under the Greek empire. Not because Diodorus, Justinus, Plutarch, Appian and Memnon are infallible (far from it—they are riddled with anomalies and inconsistencies, for they are secular and uninspired works, and cannot be trusted 100%), but because Scripture foresaw the events.”
This begs the question that Scripture refers to such events, or that such events even occurred.
Etc. On a non-traditional Scripturalist position on which knowledge can come from extra-biblical sources, these ideas could work, but recall that even if Tim is non-traditional, this blog is not. Steve said as recently as 3 months ago that he thinks the Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth, which is the classic Scripturalist position. I’m curious as to how Steve reconciles his dogmatic diatribe with his philosophy. Mentioning John Robbins – who Steve can’t even know, on his own position, was a real person (!) – is irrelevant.
Ryan, do you know the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you saved?
I do and I am, yes. I am assured of that, and I don’t mind sharing my testimony, if need be.
I’m glad to hear it.
Hi Ryan,
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I’m new to much of this but wanting to learn. Happy to be corrected…..
But to contribute to the discussion:
A woman came to Christ saying that her daughter needed healing. The daughter was not there. Yet Christ knew the daughter was real. How did He know that? The same for the centurion’s servant who was healed remotely. How did Christ know the servant was real? Neither instance could be via the senses. Neither by a verse from the OT.
But going back a tad further, how did Adam know God was talking to him? How did Adam know that he was in a garden with fruit trees?
So John tells us that the light that lights every man was coming into the world. There’s a hint to the above.
Scripture tells me that there are lots of men in the world. There are Philistines, Amalekites, Jews and Gentiles, Romans, Greeks and so on. It doesn’t name all of them like the Eskimos. But it is a reasonable inference from those Scriptures for me to say that you are real, even though I have no verse of Scripture to tell me that a guy called Ryan exists and he can also read and write and even that he has a computer or phone in front of him right now. For the Scriptures tell me that men make many inventions.
And Scripture tells me about time. It records different periods of time. Thus I draw a reasonable inference that I am living in a different time from Moses, who lived in a different time to David. And I conclude that there must have been a lot of procreation in between the times of Moses and David even though I do not have a verse that says Philistines or Indonesians were procreating during those hundreds of years.
So I think there are many things that we can draw reasonable inferences from Scripture to arrive at conclusions that such and such is real such as for example the papal system is real and is the anti-Christ, and that Tim knows he is living past 70AD.
False religions, for example Hinduism, make up many fantastic ideas that they have no basis for saying they can know about. E.g. Re-incarnation. I reject such an idea because it is nowhere to be found in Scripture and is flatly contradicted by Scripture such as for example, “It is appointed for man once to die and after that the judgement”.
Anyway, sorry to be a tad long-winded. Perhaps I have only confused the discussion. Others may have much better ways of explaining these things, like history, the nations, individuals, and so on.
I do remember one debate that Dr Clark had with a non-Scripturalist. It was very interesting and I think definitely discussed some of the same questions you have raised. You might like to listen to it when you have some time during your daily commute. It’s a tad scratchy in the audio, but crank up the volume and it’s worthwhile.
[audio src="http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Clark-Hoover_Debate.mp3" /]
I’m glad you raise the question(s). That is iron sharpening iron. It’s too easy to get lost inside our own little world of ideas otherwise.
“…draw reasonable inferences…”
This was your repeated and key phrase. Notice that this is the sort of thing that the blog author is looking to stamp out when he affirms Marsh’s Dictum: it’s got to be necessary inference or nothing at all. This was my point in asking why he affirms that yet here seems to chastise Gage et al. for not following his “reasonable” but unnecessary inference regarding the Antichrist.
By the way, I’m not a classical Scripturalist, but I would claim to be a modified one. I am aware of the track you mentioned and, some years ago, wrote this post on Hoover’s subsequent article, even interacting with Hoover himself in the comments:
https://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2013/06/david-p-hoover-on-gordon-clark.html
Thx for the link Ryan. I read about 10 of the posts on your blog and found them quite stimulating to thinking through the Scriptures.
I’m glad. Let me know if you have any further questions.