Friday, October 02, 2015

Francis Turretin: “Papacy is AntiChrist”

Following up on the wild popularity of “Pope Francis” to the United States, Leonardo de Chirico looks at the question of whether “the pope is AntiChrist” in his occasional “Vatican Files” email this morning. In it, he cites Turretin’s “7th Disputation on the AntiChrist” which was part of a larger work entitled “Concerning our Necessary Secession from the Church of Rome and the Impossibility of Cooperation with Her” (1661) (published as F. Turretin, “Whether It Can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist”, ed. by R. Winburn, Forestville, CA: Protestant Reformation Publications, 1999).

Here is a selection: Turretin: “Papacy is AntiChrist”:
Here we find perhaps the most detailed and systematic Protestant argument for the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist. Turretin endeavors to exegete Scripture and evaluate the facts of church history for the purpose of saving the Church of Christ from committing spiritual fornication.

After noting that it is the common opinion of Protestants that the Pope is the Antichrist, Turretin explains that Scripture reveals the place of the Antichrist (the temple), his time (from apostolic times onward), and his person (an apostate from the faith, a performer of spurious miracles, one who opposes Christ, a self-exalting figure, a man of sin, an idolater). Turretin goes as far as analyzing the name and number of the Beast of Revelation 13:17-18. Gathering all these elements together, he does not find these marks among the Jews or Turks (Muslims), nor among the Greek Orthodox. In his view, they only fit the chief authority of the Roman Church.

Turretin is convinced that the Antichrist is not a single person but must refer to an office or succession of persons in office that began operating in apostolic times. To the Catholic objection that Popes have never denied Christ, Turretin replies that the Antichrist will not openly deny Christ as a professed enemy but as a professed friend of Christ who praises Him with their words, yet fights Him with his actions. He sees this attitude in Popes who arrogate to themselves the three offices of Christ (Priest, Prophet and King), but bury the Gospel under their own traditions and undermine His work of redemption by their masses, purgatory, indulgences, and false worship.

Noting that this view is far from being “ecumenically correct”, he says Turretin’s view is thoroughly Biblical:
it is important to appreciate the fact that [Turretin’s views] do not stem from slandering invectives or bandying insults. Theologians like Turretin built a highly sophisticated Biblical and theological argument and were not driven by resentment alone. The Roman Church, while not being static, nor a monolithic reality, does not really change in its fundamental commitments. It expands itself but does not purify itself. It embraces new trends and practices but does not expel unbiblical ones. It grows but it does not reform itself according to gospel standards. The discussion on the Anti-Christ must be revived and worked out with biblical soberness and historical awareness.

32 comments:

  1. Turretin was a great theologian. And of course he is not alone in recognizing the marks of anti-christ within the papacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought this article from De Chirico was timely.

      Delete
  2. I suppose the WCF needs revision again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Europeans, of whom Turretin was one, never did revise the WCF. But you're right ... the papacy is going from bad to worse.

      Delete
  3. Does Triablogue support the thesis that the papacy is THE anti-christ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are we to make of Protestants' inability to agree on this interpretation of scripture?

      Delete
    2. ccthecc

      "What are we to make of Protestants' inability to agree on this interpretation of scripture?"

      What are we to make of Catholics' coercive pressure to conform to the papacy and magisterium even at the cost of reason, logic, and most importantly biblical truth?

      Delete
    3. Tblog is a group blog. It has no official position on whether the papacy is *the* Antichrist. The answer might vary depending on which team member you ask.

      Speaking for myself, I think the "spirit of the Antichrist" (in John's phrase) has multiple individual and institutional embodiments in the course of church history. The devil has many operatives and aliases. He animates many movements. Some come and go. Some are stronger at some periods than others.

      I'd say the papacy has been one front organization for the "spirit of the Antichrist."

      Francis Turretin was writing from the situation of a 17C European Protestant. His identification is reasonable at that time and place, but I don't think it's exhaustive.

      Delete
    4. ccthecc

      "What are we to make of Protestants' inability to agree on this interpretation of scripture?"

      Freedom means the possibility of being right or wrong. Catholicism means the impossibility of arriving at the truth. It locks you into official error.

      Better the possibility of correctible error and the possibility of getting it right (Protestantism) than codifying error for all time (Catholicism).

      Delete
    5. Both Catholicism and Protestantism have areas of codification and areas of freedom. The only difference is the extent of each. I presume Protestants think it's great that its areas of codification exist (e.g. the bible) otherwise chaos would be even bigger, right?

      The question would seem to be whether Protestant codification is sufficient to form a coherant rule of faith. Empiracle evidence says no.

      Delete
    6. Empiricism doesn't make normative judgments. Empirical evidence is merely descriptive.

      Delete
    7. So it's "merely" descriptive that Protestant codification doesn't work in the real world. Alriiiiight.

      Delete
    8. You haven't presented any argument that sola scriptura "doesn't work" in the "real world." Hint: you'd have to start by presenting an argument for the sort of work sola scriptura is (allegedly) supposed to do. Thus far you're just floating vague assertions and assumptions.

      Delete
    9. I would think the first step in it working would be that there would be some kind of consensus on what scripture means, especially in regards to how to run a church, and which beliefs are essential. We can't even get over that hurdle though.

      Delete
    10. ccthecc

      "I would think the first step in it working would be that there would be some kind of consensus on what scripture means, especially in regards to how to run a church, and which beliefs are essential. We can't even get over that hurdle though."

      Truth isn't decided by "consensus."

      Besides, the Bible is perspicuous in its "essential beliefs."

      Delete
    11. ccthecc

      "I would think the first step in it working would be that there would be some kind of consensus on what scripture means, especially in regards to how to run a church, and which beliefs are essential. We can't even get over that hurdle though."

      You're so conditioned by a Catholic way of framing the issue that you simply assume, without question, without argument, that sola scriptura, if true, is supposed to "work," and you also have a preconceived notion of what work it's supposed to do.

      It doesn't even occur to you that these are prejudicial, unexamined assumptions on your part. You need to present an argument for why you think sola scriptura is supposed to "work" (whatever that means), in addition to the kind of work you presume it's supposed to do, if true.

      For instance, you seem to think that if sola scriptura were true, it ought to produce consensus. But you haven't offered any argument for why we should accept your criterion.

      Delete
  4. Doesn't this thesis admit that the papacy is an office that started in apostolic times... a thesis that Protestants are loath to admit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Doesn't this thesis admit that the papacy is an office that started in apostolic times... a thesis that Protestants are loath to admit?"

      Doesn't your thesis assume a line of loaded questioning?

      Delete
    2. I don't recall having a thesis. I'm asking a question.

      Delete
    3. ccthecc

      "I don't recall having a thesis. I'm asking a question."

      At the risk of stating the obvious, there are different ways to "ask a question," and there are different types of questions. You're not merely "asking questions" as if you're sincerely curious about the answers. Sure, you may feign otherwise, but it's pretty clear your questions are anything but. No need for you to keep up this pretense.

      Delete
    4. "Doesn't this thesis admit that the papacy is an office that started in apostolic times... a thesis that Protestants are loath to admit?"

      Turretin's thesis equates the office of the papacy with the office of the Antichrist. The notion that the spirit of the Antichrist was afoot in apostolic times is already stated in 1 John 2:18ff. And Paul makes an equivalent statement in 2 Thes 2:7.

      Your statement is deceptive because you omit the Antichrist part of the equation.

      Delete
    5. I understand that Turretin equates the papacy with the anti-christ, but since Triablogue has spent so much time arguing that the monarchial episcopate in Rome didn't exist in apostolic times, whether that position is anti-christ in nature or not, it's interesting that he is basically arguing a position that Triablogue feels it has refuted.

      Delete
    6. Where does Turretin argue for a monarchial Roman episcopate in apostolic times? And even if he did, a 17C divine knows less about 1C Roman history than we do. We have more archeological info. than he did.

      In any event, you keep repeating your patent equivocation. Refuting a 1C Roman monarchial episcopate is a separate question from whether the papacy is the Antichrist.

      Delete
    7. I don't know where he argues it. But the article says that he argues it, that the office of anti-christ must have existed since apostolic times and that office is the papacy. You can't have a papacy without a monarchial episcopate.

      Anyway, if Turretin's entire thesis is refuted by "more archeological info" (ha!), then we best ignore him huh?

      Delete
    8. ccthecc: the article says that he argues it, that the office of anti-christ must have existed since apostolic times and that office is the papacy. You can't have a papacy without a monarchial episcopate

      What the article says is that, looking at his own world (1600’s) and looking at the Scriptural evidence for what AntiChrist is, he says “he does not find these marks among the Jews or Turks (Muslims), nor among the Greek Orthodox. In his view, they only fit the chief authority of the Roman Church.”

      Now, it Turretin’s day, you can be that the papacy was claiming that “the office began in apostolic times”. It makes sense that Turretin would

      It’s true, the article also says (and I have bolded) “Turretin is convinced that the Antichrist is not a single person but must refer to an office or succession of persons in office that began operating in apostolic times.”

      But if you’ve read anything I’ve written, you’ll know that, while there was no monoepiscopacy, (nor anything approaching the scope or ambition of the papacy”, that the elders of the Roman church definitely “fought among themselves as to who was greatest.

      So, even though Turretin had in mind that it was “an office or succession of persons that began operating in apostolic times” – and even with the information that we have, this language describes that historical situation accurately – the evidence is overwhelming that (a) there was no single bishop of Rome up to the late 2nd century, and (b) the men who did hold office in Rome (or who sought to hold office in Rome) were guilty of acting “like sorcerers” (as the 2nd century Shepherd of Hermas describes them): “you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.”

      That is very much a description of “antichrist” that fits: “denies that Jesus is the Christ”. Of course, all through history, Rome has effectively “denied that Jesus is the Christ” by saying that “you cannot get to Christ except through us”. It is Rome that “takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (1 Thess 2:4)” Who else could it be? Turretin had this correct: these signs did not appear among the Jews of his day, nor the Greeks, nor the Turks. Only the bishops of Rome – in his days, the “popes” displayed those marks.

      Delete
    9. Oh, and by the way "cc", whenever you're reading a writer from a different time than ours, you should ask yourself, "what did they know, and when did they know it?" - for example, look at what Hermas, writing in 135 AD, knew about "a papacy"? He was looking at a collection of elders in Rome fighting about who was greatest. Or what did Turretin know about the papacy? He knew a lot less, historically, than we know today.

      You may not understand this, but Rome effectively disengaged itself from its own history at Vatican II. What was on the books, is still on the books. But doctrinally, the documents of Vatican II re-shuffled the deck in mid-game. Steve has also used a chess metaphor: they looked at the chessboard up to that point, didn't like what they saw, and so they moved the pieces around. Why do you suppose that someone like Newman in the 19th century, even, would have to come up with a "theory" that explained why "the papacy" "had lain dormant" for five centuries? When God knows that it was the earliest church, facing fierce persecution, would have needed -- benefitted from a strong leader? Because God chose not to give a "papacy" -- rather, to allow the church of that era to rely directly on Christ. And that's what they had to do. The influence of the church at Rome in those centuries was pitiful. Look at the response of Firmilian to "Pope" Stephen (bishop of Rome in the 250's). He basically laughed at his claims. Firmilian knew a groundless boast when he saw one.

      Delete
    10. Keep in mind that Protestants didn't pioneer the notion that the pope was the Antichrist. Rather, it was medieval monks like Gioacchino da Fiore and Gerardo di Borgo San Donnino who made that identification. So we're just following Catholic precedent.

      Delete
    11. Oh so it's an unscriptural Catholic tradition. And you're supporting it why?

      Delete
    12. ccthecc

      "Oh so it's an unscriptural Catholic tradition. And you're supporting it why?"

      What makes you think these medieval monks were "unscriptural" about the pope possibly being an antichrist figure?

      Delete
    13. Alright I'll bight. Since the thesis is that the office of anti Christ goes back to apostolic times and that this office is the papacy, please demonstrate from scripture that this is so.

      This ought to be interesting.

      Delete
    14. What is it that you are going to "bight" on? It is interesting what an illiterate person such as yourself finds interesting.

      There is no "office" of antiChrist. There is a spirit of antiChrist, and as 1 John says, "now many antichrists have come", even in his day.

      Delete