All of the great historic Christian confessions, the Noble Lesson of the Waldensians, the first known Protestant Confession, the Savoy Declaration of the Congregationalists, The Particular Baptist Confession, The Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians, the Fifteen Articles of Religion of the Countess of Huntingdon Connexion, state that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist. {see also 'The man of sin revealed'}

All eminent Christian leaders from John Wycliffe in the 14th century to Charles Haddon Spurgeon in the 19th century held to this conviction.

We reprint below, by kind permission, part of an article written by Maurice Roberts which originally appeared in The Banner of Truth Magazine August/September 1991.

Of all enemies ever to vex the Church of Christ none is greater than that of Antichrist and no point of difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics is more relevant for discussion than this.  Catholic writers labour hard to conceal the likeness of their Papacy to the Antichrist and so we need to study this question with extra care.  We shall show two things: the characteristics of Antichrist as the Bible states them; the person to whom they refer in the unfolding of Church History.

Scripture sometimes employs the term 'antichrist' to refer to errorists in general (eg 1 John 2:18).  But our concern here is with the usage which refers the term to one notorious figure who is both the enemy of Christ and also Christ's pretended substitute.  He apes Christ so as to oppose Him more effectively.  We do not use such terms as Antichrist about the Papacy out of a desire to slander the Catholic Church but to show one reason why we cannot do other than separate from it.  Our view that the Papacy is the Antichrist is that held by early Protestants in general, as their Confessions of Faith show.  Robert Bellarmine, the famous Catholic apologist, acknowledges this to be the confessional view of Protestants.

Scripture reveals the place, time and person of the Antichrist.  As to place, he will sit 'in the temple of God' (2 Thessalonians 2:4), by which Paul means that he will be in the Church, and will have his seat in 'mystery Babylon'.  As to time, he will appear, not at the end of the world as Roman Catholic writers claim, but from Apostolic times onward, as Paul states (2 Thessalonians 2:7), although his growth in the Church is from small beginnings at first until, with the removal of the power which early resisted him, Antichrist becomes visible and manifest.  With the removal of this restraining force (whose identity we look at later), Antichrist gradually emerged in history in a visible form.

As to the personal identity of Antichrist, this is to be gathered especially from various things ascribed to him by Scripture.  For one thing, there was to occur an apostasy from the faith (2 Thessalonians 2:3) at the time when Antichrist would be revealed.  This would coincide with the rise of devilish doctrines in the Church (1 Timothy 4:1-3) and of the spurious miracles referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:9.  A second feature of Antichrist was said by Paul to be his opposition to Christ.  The third would be his own self-exaltation.  He would not be content to be thought a man but would exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped (2 Thessalonians 2:4).  From this exalted position he would do all he could to oppose Christ.  The extraordinary claims and conduct of the various Popes have fulfilled to the letter this characteristic of Antichrist which the apostle Paul has given to us.

Further marks of Antichrist are that he is the 'man of sin' and 'son of perdition' (2 Thessalonians 2:3).  By the first term is to be understood the fact that Antichrist would both be a notorious sinner himself and would be an instigator of sin in others.  The application of the term to many of the Popes fits perfectly, since Popes have regarded themselves as 'subject to no law' but to be a law unto themselves.  They have been promoters of corrupt religion among all who have followed them.

A further mark of Antichrist is said in Scripture to be idolatry, to which he compels his followers (Revelation 13:16-17).  This is another obvious feature of the Papacy.  Then again, there is the power he exerts to forbid men who buy or sell without his permission (Revelation 13:17).  Papal edicts against the Albigenses, and in the times of Wycliffe and Huss, exactly fulfilled this prophecy.

God has given further identity marks of Antichrist in the New Testament references to the name and number of the Beast (Revelation 13:17-18).  These are shown by Turretine to be cryptic references to forms of papal oppression.

Antichrist would become known by the fraudulent signs and 'lying wonders' which he would pretend to do (2 Thessalonians 2:9).  This sign is not to be found among Jews or Turks (Muslims) or Greek Orthodox.  But it is a feature of Roman Catholicism.  To these signs we must see the Apostles also add those of cruelty and violence.  Antichrist is to act as a 'beast' and to make martyrs of men.  Other marks of Antichrist could be adduced, but these must here suffice.  Those who wish to look at further evidence may read the writings of the many learned Reformed scholars who have written about this subject such as Whitaker, Junius, Downame, Mede and others.

Even Pope Gregory 1, writing about the year AD 600, declared that anyone who termed himself 'universal priest' or wished to be so termed, was a forerunner of Antichrist!  There are various testimonies in succeeding centuries by different authors of the Church, notably in Hildebrand's pontificate, to the same effect.  These Turretine gives, along with the references, his purpose being to show that the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist of Scripture by the Reformed Churches is nothing new but had been made centuries earlier by various writers in the Roman Catholic Church before the Protestant Reformation.

Catholic apologists have attempted to obscure and cloud this whole question of the Papacy and the Antichrist by advancing the following arguments: First, that Antichrist would be one single person who would appear in the distant future; second, that Antichrist would be a Jew who would restore the Jewish temple with other ceremonies of Judaism; third, that Enoch and Elijah would come to oppose Antichrist, according to Revelation 11; fourth, that Antichrist would deny the incarnation of Christ and attack all the ordinances of Christ, according to the text 1 John 2:22.  Since these things cannot be said of the Pope, Catholic apologists attempt to deny his identity as Antichrist; fifth, they refer to the views of the Church Fathers to the effect that either Caligula or Simon Magus, Trajan or someone else must be the Antichrist of Scripture.

Turretine devotes the rest of his treatise to refuting these opinions of Roman Catholic writers.  His arguments are as follows:

1.  The Antichrist (or 'Man of Sin') cannot be a term referring to one single person but must refer to an office or succession of persons in office in the visible church.  Paul expressly declares that Antichrist's beginnings, or first manifestations, were in his own day (2 Thessalonians 2:7 'doth already work') whereas his eventual destruction would not occur till the second coming of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:8 'whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming').

2.  The Scriptures say that Antichrist was to emerge in 'the last times', or New Testament times, but not that his coming was to be postponed to the very end of those times.  The entire gospel age is meant by 'the last time'.

3.  As to the claim that Antichrist was to be a Jew of the tribe of Dan - this is pure fiction found in some earlier writers without Scriptural basis.  Not even Bellarmine, the Roman Catholic apologist, pins much faith on it.

4.  The notion about Enoch and Elijah is little better.  The Latin Vulgate translation of Ecclesiasticus 44:16 ('he [Enoch] was translated into paradise to give repentance to the nations') is misleading and ought rather, following the original Greek, to be translated: 'he was translated into paradise as an example of repentance to future generations'.  It is not a literal but mystical Elijah who is referred to by the prophet in Malachi 4:5.

5.  As to the Catholic objection to the fact that Antichrist will deny Christ (a thing, they say, not done by the Papacy), we answer that the Antichrist referred to by the Scriptures would not deny Christ openly, as a professed enemy, but would deny Him nonetheless as a professed friend of Christ.  To this effect is the telling comment of Augustine of Hippo: 'Antichrist is the more deceitful in that he professes Jesus Christ with the mouth but denies Him by his actions'.  This the Popes do because they arrogate to themselves the three offices of Christ, bury the Gospel under their own traditions, and destroy Christ's redemptive work by their own masses, merits, purgatory and indulgences.

Furthermore, the Papacy has substituted idolatrous worship for the pure worship and ordinances of the New Testament, as Daniel 11:31 prophesied that he would.  For Antiochus Epiphanes in Old Testament times was a type and figure of the Antichrist who was to come.

6.  Lastly, it has to be said that the early Church Fathers were not prophets but only interpreters of God's Word.  It stands to reason that the Church Fathers would not throw much light on the subject of Antichrist because it is always easier to speak of prophecies which are fulfilled than of those which are still to be fulfilled.  As a matter of fact, the rise of the Papacy occurred after their day.  So they are particularly ill-qualified to speak on this subject.

We regard our case as proved, then, that the Papacy is the Antichrist of Scripture and that we, the Reformed, are fully justified in our separation from the Roman Catholic Church.