The Pope = The Man of Sin (Part 1)


In a previous post called, “The Roman Catholic Antichrist,” I shared a quote from the Scottish National Covenant. It includes a list of the Roman Catholic heretical teachings and abominable practices. I wanted to take some to explain a difficult topic. By “difficult”, I mean difficult to accept because of so many views on the end times. We have to admit that this is now a rare view in the church. Through a series of posts I will share reasons why the reformers held to the view that the office of Pope is the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2) , the antichrist (1 John 2) , and the beast of Revelation (Revelation 13).

The Westminster Confession

This view of the man of sin is confessional. The Westminster divines felt that it was so important that they included it in their confession of faith. They did not include every single doctrinal belief in the confession but they chose not to excluded this one. It is also included in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Here is what it says in the Westminster Confession, chapter 25:

“VI. 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 exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

They also provided these scripture proofs for their position:

Matthew 23:8-10

“But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

2 Thessalonians 2:3-9

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,”

Revelation 13:6

“And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.”

The Antichrist and The Man of Sin

The title “antichrist” comes from 1 John 2:18-23:

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

Some like to separate the antichrist, the man of sin, and the beast but historically they were seen as the same. Francis Nigel Lee compiled a list of theologians who believed that the antichrist and the man of sin are the same. This is not an exhaustive list but it get the point across.

“The following Theologians regarded Rev. 13: 1f’s Sea-Beast as Antichrist: Irenaeus (A.D. 185), Tertullian (200f), Cyprian (250), Victorinus (300), Lactantius (315), Ephraim (370), Ambrose (390), Augustine (430), Primasius (560), Andreas of Caesarea (580), Bede (730), Berengaud (830), Walafrid Strabo (840), Haymo (850), Bruno Segni (1120), Peter Waldo (1120), Bernard of Clairvaux (1130), Richard of St. Victor (1170), Joachim of Floris (1200), Eberhard of Salzburg (1240), Pierre Jean d’Olivi (1240), Albert the Great (1280), Ubertino of Casale (1305), John Wycliffe (1384), Walter Brute (1390), Matthias of Janow (1394), John Purvey (1428), John Huss (1415), Tyndale (1536), Osiander (1552), Joye (1553), Bale (1563), Von Amsdorff (1565), Virgil Solis (1567), Conrad (1570), Jewel (1571), Bullinger (1575), John Foxe (1587), John Napier (1593), Pacard (1604), Brightman (1614), Cappel (1615), David Pareus (1618), Cramer (1619), James the First (1625), Alsted (1627), Mede (1631), Grotius (1640), Gerhard (1643), Helwig (1643), John Cotton (1652), Tillinghast (1655), Durham (1657), Holyoake (1658), Cocceius (1669), Increase Mather (1669), Spener (1670), Sherwin (1670), Goodwin (1680), Roger Williams (1683), Jurieu (1687), Phillipot (1695), Cotton Mather (1696), Fleming (1701), Matthew Henry (1712), Cressener (1718), Daubuz (1720), Burnet (1724), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), De Bionens (1729), Pyle (1735), John Willison (1745), Jonathan Edwards (1747), Bengel (1752), Aaron Burr (1757), Isaac Backus (1767), Petri (1768), John Gill (1771), Langdon (1774), Bishop Thomas Newton (1782), Hans Wood (1787), Ben Gale (1788), Thomas Scott (1788), John Wesley (1791), Samuel Hopkins (1793), Timothy Dwight (1796), Jeremy Belknap (1798), Faber (1806), Romeyne (1808), Elias Smith (1808), Andrew Fuller (1810), Cunninghame (1813), Alexander Keith (1828), Robert Scott (1834), Junkin (1836), Hinton (1842), Bishop Elliott (1844), Albert Barnes (1851) and most Protestant commentators from then onward prior to the Church’s later and massive collapse into theological liberalism.” – John’s Revelation Unveiled


The push-back on combining the man of sin and the antichrist happens because of the description of each one. The antichrist seems to be one who is against Christ, whereas the man of sin seems to not be against Christ because he claims to be him. Is it against Christ if someone claims to be God when they are not? Of course it is! The description of the man of sin, who claims to be God, would then fit the description of the antichrist. Also, the word “anti” in the original language does not always mean “against” but it can also mean “instead of” or “in place of.”  If this is true, then the antichrist is someone who takes the place of Christ. The word “anti” is used this way in many places found in scripture.

Mark 10:45

“For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Luke 11:11
“If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?”

1 Corinthians 11:15

“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

The Universal View Among the Reformers

The view that the antichrist, man of sin, and the beast is the office of papacy was also universal among the reformers. This does not mean that this was the only view because it wasn’t. This was a held by the majority of the reformed church. Here is another list from Francis Nigel Lee of theologians who believed that the beast of Revelation is the papacy.

“The following Theologians, following adumbrations already in A.D. 840 by Walafrid Strabo, regarded Rev. 13: 1f’s Sea-Beast as the Papacy-in-embryo: Peter Waldo (1120 A.D.), Eberhard of Salzburg (1240), John Wycliffe (1384), Matthias of Janow (1394), John Purvey (1428), John Huss (1415), Tyndale (1536), Osiander (1552), Joye (1553), Bale (1563), Von Amsdorff (1565), Virgil Solis (1567), Conrad (1570), Jewel (1571), Bullinger (1575), James the First (1625), Helwig (1643), Cocceius (1648), John Cotton (1652), Tillinghast (1655), Thos. Goodwin (1680), Roger Williams (1683), Phillipot (1695), Cotton Mather (1696), Cressener (1718), Sir Isaac Newton (1727), Burnet (1724), Bengel (1740), John Willison (1745), Jonathan Edwards (1747), Bengel (1752), Aaron Burr (1757), Isaac Backus (1767), John Gill (1771), Bishop Thomas Newton (1782), John Wesley (1791), Samuel Hopkins (1793), Timothy Dwight (1796), Jeremy Belknap (1798), and most Protestant commentators such as David Brown and Bonar and Fairbairn from 1800 onward – prior to the Church’s massive collapse into theological liberalism (as a result of the impact of the so-called ‘Enlightenment’ and the French Revolution).” – John’s Revelation Unveiled

The reason why this topic is important is because of the attack against the true church of Christ by an apostate church. The Pope wants to stop the work of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must be ready to share that gospel with anyone who embraces Roman Catholicism. We truly love our neighbor and warning them about the Pope would be a great act of love. I will address these questions and more, in this series:

  • Have the Popes claimed to be God?
  • Who is the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians?
  • Is the Pope the beast of Revelation?
  • What does 666 mean?
  • Has the Pope done any signs and lying wonders?



Add yours →

  1. this is just silly, downright evil trash. perhaps you should find someone who can interpret the scripture better than you seem to be able to- as a rule I do not believe in antagony, but you are beyond the pale with this. who indeed is your authority beyond yourself? sola scriptura, sola fidei and eternal security are dead concepts crushed by their own contradictions. I suggest you find another avenue for your vitriol, before someone takes the time to smash your doctrines to pieces. you live in a house of straw, upon a shifting foundation– the foundation of hate.

    • I would love to discuss this with you, John. I am willing to hear you out. Why do you think this is evil trash?

      • I am not a good apologist, nor am I very patient- especially with people who do not truly wish to listen, as I suspect you are, judging by your posts and their content. If indeed you wish to discuss this there will be a framework for the discussion- not stone throwing. I have attended and investigated Methodism, Angilcanism and Assembly of God congregations; I am very familiar with their doctrines, AND worship. I would doubt you are familiar with catholic doctrine or worship– going as a child does not count as investigation- nor does going with preconceived notions, i.e. spewing out things that others have stated in their vituperation and conceit.
        Scripture states clearly the role of Peter and his office, which is borne out by fifteen centuries of teaching and practice. Anything else calls Our Lord a liar. if so He is not He Who Is.Catholic– read Christian worship has been the same soine the early 100’s have you not read Justin Martyrs description of a worship service? it is the same as the Mass today. There is nothing NOTHING in Catholic doctrine that is contradicted by Holy Scripture. To call us such names with such misguided conviction borders true evil- having gone way past mere ignorance. Faith for instance without works is a dead faith-0 who said that. He who does the “will of My Father in heaven” is the one who goes to heaven- Who said THAT?
        “Upon this Rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail” Who said that?
        “Hail Mary, full of Grace”
        Who said that and where is it from?
        n”the pillar and foundation of the Faith is the Church” Hmmm.
        “I give to you the power to forgive sins in my name” there is another one.
        I am so sorry, please forgive my ire- we Catholics have turned the other cheek for centuries– however you no longer slap us on the cheek, but do far worse and many of us are now ready to defend ourselves at every turn. You do not like us? fine. every day the catholic church around the world feed more people, educate more children, and heal more of the sick than every other institution in the world combined we do the will of Him, and this is how we are repaid. Not only do we serve Him in the world, but we worship Him… and Him alone exactly as He wishes us to; “unless you eat My Body and drink my blood, you will have no life in you. For My body is real food and My blood real drink…”
        Having said all of this, before we discuss this any further, read the book Four Witnesses by Rob Bennett, I believe. Here is leaving you to your own decisions and to my prayers along with all the others who by hating Our Lords Church- which He Himself established, ends up making it very hard for themselves in the age to come. May the Lord bless you and bring you closer to Him. For it is only His grace that can do so; no other power can.

      • Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I am very familiar withy Catholic teaching. I was baptized in the RCC and went to mass with my grandmother all the time. I’m curious about the first question I asked. Which part of my post is evil trash? If I have misrepresented the Roman Catholic faith then please show me. I am not beyond correction. Are you familiar with the Popes claiming to be God?

      • First off I have read the histories of all the popes also remember that Popes are human beings and are sinful men as are we all. secondly there were some Popes that were down right terrible- about half a dozen. Thirdly each one of them is subject to Gods justice and mercy, just like us all . there were some bad Popes, just as there was a bad apostle. we all Catholic recognize the fallible human nature of all men except Our Lord. Now I know what you are about to say- “what about Papal infallibility?” What about it?
        The Pope in his office as the successor to Peter, when speaking for the chair of Peter in His duty to define doctrine and dogma, is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, just as Our Lord Promised. in all of the 2,000 year history of the Church, there has NEVER been an excathedra pronouncement by the Pope in union with the rest of the Bishops that has contradicted the Holy Scripture, or the Deposit of faith left to us all by the Apostles. There is no doubt that many Popes have at one time or another have said some extremely stupid things– as have we all. Now, in all of my readings, I have never read a credible source that lead to any Pope that has declared themselves to be God Almighty. and I seriously doubt that you have either, when you have thoroughly examined the source. Nevertheless if indeed one Pope said such a dastardly thing, even in jest or as an allusion, he is mistaken, has committed a sin which puts his soul in jeopardy of damnation. And rest assured, this is NOT anything that ANY Catholic, in whatever position would countenance. I really believe you had get some better information. What Pope said this to who, and when, pray tell?

      • I see the quotes you posted– where did they come from; what is your source; from a reliable historical source?, or some anti catholic website– one needs to take a neutral source, such as the original document, and then make sure it is taken out of context– i.e. there are many evangelicals who believe that Jesus never laughed, since it only says in the scriptures( a Catholic book by the way,)”Jesus wept”. If you wish to continue this dialogue, then provide the original sources from which you get these quotes– for instance, I have read john xxiii autobiography, journal of a soul– and there is nothing remotely like this anywhere- so you are going to have to find a REAL source, not something like a chick tract or boettner or some other joker that masquerades as a theologian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: