Petrus Romanus: The Papacy as Antichrist

By Cris D. Putnam

The idea that the pope or office of the papacy is the biblical Antichrist offends modern sensibility. Contemporary culture elevates political correctness as a cardinal virtue albeit many of its staunchest proponents are intolerant of those who advocate objective truth. It seems pluralism rules the day in religious discourse. Even in evangelical circles, ecumenism disavows such an idea. However, protestant tradition is not politically correct. The purpose of this series is to survey the history of the notion that the papacy fulfills the prophetic descriptions of Antichrist and to follow the data where it leads. This presentation will first give a broad overview and summary of the biblical data and then it will offer a sampling of significant Protestants who have contended for the idea. Two noteworthy proponents, Francis Turretin and Charles Hodge, will be discussed more thoroughly. Finally, a brief discussion will be offered on contemporary responses and conclusions will be drawn. While the argument that the papacy fulfills the prophecies of the Antichrist is sound and compelling, it seems unwarranted to conclude that it does so exclusively.

The Antichrist in Prophecy

The concept of antichrist traces back to Israelite history where Israel as the chosen people of God were threatened or opposed by a pagan Kings. For example, concerning the Babylonian King, Isaiah writes, “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north” (Is 14:13). Ezekiel paints a similar portrait of the King of Tyre (28:2) and Gog of Magog (38-39). This self-proclaimed apotheosis is also found in the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and 8. Even more, it is seen in Daniel 11:36-37. Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated the second temple typifies the eschatological figure and the infamous “abomination of desolation” is seemingly spoken of as future event by Jesus (Mt 24:15). This deified tyrant figure appears in the New Testament in Paul’s description of the “man of lawlessness” who “proclaims himself to be God” (2 Th 2:4). In John’s Apocalypse, he is the beast from the abyss whose image is idolatrously worshipped (13:1-18). In Mark 13:22, Jesus warns near the time of his return that false Christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets (pseudoprophētai) will deceive people by doing signs and wonders (cf. Matt 7:15; 24:11, 23–24). These texts form a composite picture from which scholars and expositors have formed a model of who this is and how he might manifest.

The Greek term antichristos can be taken two ways as “opponent of Christ” or as “false Christ.” This is due to the twofold meaning of the prefix “anti.” It can mean “against” or “instead of.”[1] It is only used explicitly in 1 John 2:18.22; 4:3; 2 John 7, and in other apocryphal Christian literature. If we look to John’s epistles we see that antichrist is defined as “he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 Jn 2:22b). This meets the “against” sense the prefix “anti.” Yet, John also seems to distinguish between a single Antichrist “who is coming” and a plural “many antichrists who have come,” (1 Jn 2:18). Leon Morris offers, “Perhaps we should bear in mind that John refers to ‘the spirit of the antichrist’ as well as ‘the Antichrist’ (thus using both neuter and masculine); indeed, he refers to ‘many antichrists’ in whom that spirit finds expression (1 John 4:3; 2:18).”[2] Thus, it seems prudent to be flexible in one’s view. Even so, in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul’s use of: 1) “man of lawlessness;”2) ” son of destruction;”3)”he who opposes and exalts himself;”4) “he whose coming is after the working of Satan” points to a single individual. Due to this and because Jesus is described as defeating an individual (cf. 2 Th 2:8; Re 19:20), one should understand the general term “antichrist” as many individuals culminating with an ultimate incarnation, “the Antichrist,” just prior to the Parousia.

Most interpreters conflate the two meanings of “anti” with a figure who poses as Christ while initially clandestinely opposing God in allegiance with Satan. This portrait of a deceptive usurper is well supported by the above mentioned passages. Yet, the futurist interpretation has not been the dominant view of the Apocalypse historically. Since the reformation, there has been a large body of biblical scholarship which posits the events in the book of Revelation as milestones along church history. We believe that this approach has merit and will suggest a hybrid of futurist and historical interpretation. While speculations on the identity of Antichrist have run the gamut from Muhammad to President Obama, arguably, until very recently, the dominant opinion since the reformation has been the Roman Catholic pope albeit not a single pope rather the office of the papacy. Even though strictly historical interpretations seem inadequate, a hybrid of historical with a still yet ultimate realization of “the Antichrist” offers more promise. Nevertheless, it is demonstrable that from the time of Luther to the present day, there has been a consistent and compelling argument that the office of the papacy fulfills the prophetic type of antichrist.

Next we begin a survey of some of the major proponents of the papal Antichrist.

[1] L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, “Antichrist.” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd extensively rev. ed. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter Willem van der Horst (Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 62.


[2]Leon Morris, vol. 13, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 129.


About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.


  1. Mart says:

    At one time I believed that also the from the papacy the antichrist would come, but not now.

    In the Catholic churches hey days it wielded a lot of power and control over the globe but now a days it has lost the vigour of it’s youth and is becoming like an old man with all sorts of aches and pains, ridiculed and mocked and it has no power to do that much about it. Even their own hospitals and instittutions can not follow the popes dictates as the local law overrides.

    So then what is the source of the world’s power except it governments, so who represent a large proportion of those in power except the masons and where was the first lodge the source of this organisation except london, so who does this organisation represent, clue the higher up members are called knights, barons, etc, the royal family, It is they who hold the real power in the Western world and else where.

    Where you find a church of england (Anglican Church) you usually will also find a Masonic temple and who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England again the head of the royal family. It is a English way of ruling other peoples/countries through indirect control and is how they controlled their vast empire.

    The Antichrist is male so it is not the queen.

  2. Klaatu says:

    If “anti-christ” has to do with the claim of being a “lord” over church or state, then it can apply to anyone, and not just to the Pope, if they bear the marks. This is the position of the Lutheran Confessions and the LCMS. We should use the “marks of antichrist” to criticize our own churches and religious institutions, no matter what denomination we belong to. This certainly applies to the aspect of false doctrine, but also to polity and the powers of clergy. Religious ministers must be servants, not lords. When they lose proper accountability to the people, or when too much power is concentrated in one person, then “anti-christ is again rearing its ugly head.” The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is the best antidote against such antichrist.

    Smalcald Articles II, iv “The pope is not the head of all Christendom “by divine right” or on the basis of God’s Word, because that only belongs to the one who is called Jesus Christ. Instead, the pope is only bishop, or pastor, of the church at Rome and of those who willingly . . . have joined themselves to him in order to be Christians alongside him as a brother and companion, but not under him as lord.” (sec. 1, p. 307).

    — Dr. Martin Noland is the Director Concordia Historical Institute

    Now, as to world wide Freemasonry..

    “”It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fessler’s Rite, the ‘Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and West — Sovereign Prince Masons,’ etc., etc., are nearly all the offspring of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron Hundt, Chevalier Ramsay, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous others who founded the grades in these rites, worked under instructions from the General of the Jesuits. The nest where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite is free from their baleful influence more or less, was the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris.”

    “Findel says (see his History of Freemasonry, p. 253) that in the eighteenth century, “besides the modern Knights Templar, we see the Jesuits . . . disfiguring the fair face of Freemasonry. Many Masonic authors, who were fully cognizant of the period, and knew exactly all the incidents occurring, positively assert that then and still later the Jesuits exercised a pernicious influence, or at least endeavored to do so, upon the fraternity.” Of the Rosicrucian Order he remarks, upon the authority of Prof. Woog, that its “aim at first . . . was nothing less than the support and advancement of Catholicism. When this religion manifested a determination entirely to repress liberty of thought . . . the Rosicrucians enlarged their designs likewise to check, if possible, the progress of this widely-spreading enlightenment.”
    — Madame Helena Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled”

    So, back to square one. The Antichrist may well not come out of the “public,” “known,” “white,” — papacy. It may well be, that it rises out of the “secret,” “unknown/hidden,” “black” — papacy…

    Luther died in 1546. Societas Iesu came about in 1540. Not sure what Melancthon et al thought about them…

  3. Lee says:

    I don’t know if this can be de-bunked or not. It lines up with many other things I have read that would cause me to believe it is true. I think when it comes to searching for truth,it is a journey that goes down many paths! This is sure an interesting one to ponder,in my opinion.


    “Many people love to point the finger at the Jesuits as the cause of the world’s troubles.

    The Jesuit order is a Roman Catholic order of priests and scholars. Their leadership live in the Vatican.

    The great secret however is that the society of Jesus was organized by crypto-Jews.

    The Jesuit society was created in 1534 by a group of Marrano Jews: Ignatius Loyola, Alfonso Salmeron and Diego Lainez.

    In 1492 the entire Jewish community of Spain, some 200 000 of them, were expelled. Amidst these expulsions the tactic of crypto-Judaism is taken up by many in the Jewish community in order to hide and evade exile and persecution. But the conversion is always a dishonest one and they continue their Jewish practices in secret.

    The founder of the Jesuit order Ignatius Loyola himself was a crypto-Jew of the occult cabala. In 1491 Loyola began his subversive activities in the Jewish Illuminati order of Spain under the guise of Roman Catholicism.”

    (Link to follow separately)

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Lee – it debunks itself if you know anything at all about history, the problem is that Rome has historically persecuted the Jews, they opposed the formation of the modern state in 1948 and still today opposes them at every opportunity siding with the Palestinians. It really doesn’t line up with reality historically or today. It is just racism.

      BTW Ignatius of Loyola was Spanish

  4. john B says:

    Hi Cris : do you acknowledge that there is a strong Zionist element at work within the establishment of the Modern State of Israel and within the vatican I am not Talking about your every day Jew Here God bless them! I am making reference along the lines of Lee’s comment. By the way I heard Tom Horn on TRUNEWS.COM yesterday Good program…

    john B

    • Cris Putnam says:

      john B,

      What do you mean by Zionist element? There is nothing particularly sinister about the term “Zionist” as it is normally defined.

      Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

      I have seen absolutely no evidence that the Vatican is Zionist. In fact, I have seen a mountain of evidence to the contrary. The Vatican is pushing the 2 state solution and always sides with the Palestinians against Israel. In fact, the Vatican puts forth the same replacement theology that you do john B. You are right in line with Rome’s position on Israel. See:,7340,L-4203818,00.html

      What evidence can you show that the Vatican supports Zionism?

  5. Lee says:


    To be honest,I’d say it depends on what you are looking for! Just a quick Google search on “Vatican Supports Zionism” or “Ignatious Layola a Jew” will turn up vast amounts of convincing results,unless one already has a mind set against them.

    The same could be true of any world view,I suppose.

    I got done listening to the same Tom Horn interview John B. mentioned. It was very good. I am in agreement with the Catholic church having been infiltrated,as you say. By Masons,or Illuminati,or whomever….I think if one would look with an open mind,you will find Zionism behind it all.

    Maybe you aren’t convinced,but someone else who reads this might be curious enough to embark on a search of their own. No harm in looking,is there?

    As I was saying,I came across some interesting links,but wanting to avoid the Moderation process,I will skip posting them at this time.

  6. Lee says:

    For the record,again,not to confuse anti-Zionism with all Jews….

    From “Mystery Babylon,Catholic or Jewish? Part One”

    “The “Synagogue of Satan” which is the subject of this series must not be confused with the “Remnant” of Jews, who will receive the Lord Jesus Christ at His Second Coming and be saved by Him. The Synagogue of Satan are an occult power elite which, having rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel, conspire to substitute another messiah made in the image of their master, Satan, and to establish a world kingdom under Satan. The Synagogue of Satan claims Jewish descent, but does not fit God’s definition of a Jew, either in the Old Testament or the New: “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:29)

    The Synagogue of Satan have contempt, not only for Jesus Christ, His Church and the Gentile masses, but for the Jewish “Remnant” who are Torah-observant and anti-Zionist and are, therefore, awaiting the kingdom of Israel to be restored when the Messiah appears, and not before. As well, the Synagogue of Satan have conspired to eliminate all people, whether Jew or Gentile, who stand in the way of their world kingdom. To this end they have developed a staggering number of fronts, as well as the capacity to create blinds and diversions, to obscure the fact that they are Cabalist Jews with an anti-Christ agenda. Through the centuries, the Synagogue of Satan have, by means of false identities, infiltrated Gentile institutions where they act as agents provocateurs—undercover agents who provoke violence and beget scandals, which are used to bring reproach upon Jesus Christ and His Church. ”

    This is a very lengthy read. I haven’t read it all,and even if I did,much of it would probably go over my head! I still find it fascinating,…this whole subject,as well as the times we are living in.

    I’m not so sure,as Tom said toward the end of his interview,that we should be glad to be alive in such times as these! Some people surely are,but I can’t say I’m glad to be seeing what our world has become. It gets sadder every day.

    But,as a famous man once said: “Not my will,Father,but yours!”

  7. john B says:

    Cris; I am a little confused here.. I thought that you acknowledged that Vatican has vested interest in Jerusalem.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      I thought that you acknowledged that Vatican has vested interest in Jerusalem.

      of course they do… they want to take it for themselves. That is the polar opposite of Zionism.

  8. john B says:

    Cris this site that you gave,7340,L-4203818,00.html Is a load of Rubbish Google youtube Pope Benedict and Jewish synagogue worship and see what is really happening..

    If replacement theology is the belief that the OT natural descendants of Abraham have been replaced with the Holy Nation of The N T through the shed Blood of Messiah Then I am so!

    Listen to Apostle Peter as he addresses the Jews of the dispersion “For you once were (((not a people))) but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but Now you have received Mercy” 1Pet2:10
    are we to listen to Apostle or Not! The Jews are no longer His people That is plain to see By Apostles words is it Not? I have replaced nothing God Has done it..

    The Zionism That I mentioned above is the Illuminati masonic Zionist that which Lee speaks of..

    john b

    • Cris Putnam says:

      John B: The Jews are no longer His people That is plain to see By Apostles words is it Not?

      Apostle Paul: “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.(Ro 11:1)

      Case closed. You have more in common with catholic theology than you think JohnB.

  9. Lee says:

    Gosh,Chris,…It’s always “racism” if anything bad is said against the Jews,but when they are elevated as a special race above the rest,that isn’t?

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Making blanket statements against a race is always racism. But it seems you miss the point. It was never about their race rather God’s election. God is making a point through them. God made specific eternal promises in his covenants. The point is God’s integrity. God makes this clear in Ezekiel 36:

      “Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.(Eze 36:22)

      It is simply because God keeps His promises, not because they are a superior race! They do no deserve it and frankly neither do I. It is simply by God’s grace and election that any of us is saved.

      “Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel. Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.” (Eze 36:32–33)

  10. john B says:

    Cris; You need to follow the context from Rom11:1 withVs2 “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew” Rom11:2
    Paul was in Christ One of His people whom he foreknew Just are there are other Jews and Gentiles in the Israel of God.. surly you can see what The Apostle is making reference too.. that is why he can say in Vs26 “and So all Israel will be saved” All Israel is not referring to all of the descendants of Abraham all over the world, as it would have to imply that, and not only those in the Land. So; The descendants of the Bond woman shall not be heir with the descendants of the free woman Gal4:30,31

    john b

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Again – I agree “all Israel” includes gentiles but so what? John you are cherry picking – you skipped : “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.(Ro 11:28–29)

      Do you know what the word “irrevocable” means John B? Please define irrevocable to prove to me you understand.

  11. john B says:

    Here is a link Cris on the Zionist Q…. The true Jewish spirit holds that truth and morality are absolute and cannot be trimmed to fit one’s perceived self interest. G.J. Nueberger expresses this spirit in his essay “The Great Gulf Between Zionism and Judaism.”

    • Cris Putnam says:

      For language to be meaningful then the definitions of terms must be agreed on. The standard dictionary definition of Zionism is necessarily the meaning for any meaningful discussion. If you want to change the meaning of terminology to match your skewed views of reality then discourse is not even possible. You might as well just talk to yourself.
      Zi•on•ism \ˈzī-ə-ˌni-zəm\ n
      1896 : an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel — Zi•on•ist \-nist\ adj or n — Zi•on•is•tic \ˌzī-ə-ˈnis-tik\ adj

      Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.

  12. Lee says:

    I have a theory about the way to describe God’s “elect”.

    That God knows already the beginning to the end and knows ahead of time who will “finish the race” and not deny Him.

    That’s how I like to see it.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Lee how do you handle this passage: “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” (Eph 1:4–5)

      Since “God chose us” and “predestined us” before the foundation of the world as this passage states, then doesn’t it seem that divine election is much more then simple foreknowledge?

  13. Lee says:


    Being predestined may mean that it was His will,His desire,that all should come to Him,and He made the way for that to happen,as a free gift to us all.

    But that”s a debate I don’t want to get into right now. Maybe later!

    As for the definition of Zionism,if you want to go that route,we may as well take all our information from our high school history books!

    I’d say the other definition is …Zionism:Tool for World Domination!

  14. john B says:

    Cris; Irrevocable means unchangeable… it is to be understood in the light of His Calling and foreknowledge. Those whom He foreknew He also predestined.. Both Jews & Gentiles… Rom11:30,31 shows this… Paul places the Gentiles under the same category of Gods people Foreknown by Him…. And furthermore Vs 32 shows that “He has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all” (Both groups) Rom11:32

    Cris; you need to remove the dispensation aspect from your theology and Let the Apostle words shine!
    There is no confusion with the way the Apostle says it… God Has One People “The Israel of God” Represented by the Olive tree, These are of Abraham’s faith and Not His race… Salvation is By Grace Not race!
    The dispensation crew would have us believe that God is going to save the entire race “The Bond woman’s Heirs” about which Apostle says are “Cast out”
    Any Jew in order to receive salvation has to be grafted back into the Israel of God “His Holy Nation” and it will only be them whom He Foreknew as Apostle says Rom11:2
    The only People He foreknew are those which are not “cast out”.. They are “cast out” because He knew them not!

    john B

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Irrevocable means unchangeable… it is to be understood in the light of His Calling and foreknowledge. Those whom He foreknew He also predestined.. Both Jews & Gentiles… Rom11:30,31 shows this… Paul places the Gentiles under the same category of Gods people Foreknown by Him…. And furthermore Vs 32 shows that “He has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all” (Both groups) Rom11:32

      Wow, you cannot deal with the passage in context! Please! You can’t just jump all over the Bible to make it agree with you John. You must read Paul’s argument in the order he structured it as he wrote it. Follow Paul’s reasoning and do not jump around to different chapters trying to support you presuppositions! The Bible is not a Ouija board!

      This is the order of Paul’s phrases which form a linear argument.

      1) Who is he talking about?

      “As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake.” He is talking about Jews who are enemies of the Gospel.

      2) What is their status as far as election because they enemies of the Gospel?

      “But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” It seems through grace because of their heritage as God’s chosen nation in the OT they beloved in spite of that.

      3) Why is this so?

      “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” God called Israel to make an example out them and to deliver his word. He also made everlasting covenant promises to them. God made everlasting promises: Genesis 48:3–4 Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and will increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’ ”

      It is everlasting to Jacob’s descendants (Jews) and Paul confirms it is irrevocable.

      4) Is this unjust of God?

      “For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,” (Ro 11:28-30)

      No, its not because none of deserve God’s favor. This verse says it is not based on their behavior or obedience — which is exactly what you are saying it is based on. Your position is directly opposed to scripture. I really hope you can see start to see this.

  15. Lee says:

    So,let me ask if I understand this Chris.

    Do the Jews get a “free pass”,based on that covenant,and they do not need to be obedient to God or come to Him through Christ?

    Which Jews,precisely,because I’m a quarter Jewish. Do I fall under that covenant?

    • Cris Putnam says:

      That’s a common misunderstanding and straw man that some disingenuous folks employ to argue against the biblical teaching. No one is saying they get a “free pass,” they still are saved by the Gospel as individuals like anyone else. The way you ask this, I really wonder about your view of the Gospel. Are you under the law? But didn’t we all get a free pass or did you earn your salvation? Are you saved by your good behavior? I’m just wondering… it seems to me the Gospel is a “free pass.” But that is not really the point. You are making a category error. The argument is about the proposition that “God is done with national Israel.” It’s not about individuals and their salvation. (You need to make a distinction between individuals and the nation) God made promises to the nation – Jacob’s descendents.

      Paul says God is not done with the nation – no matter what they do – after the fullness of Gentiles come in, he will again turn his attention back to them and they will repent (it seems the hard way), God will keep his promises to the nation. It’s not going to be pretty for them, as prophecy implies this involves a huge battle centered on Jerusalem. The point is God’s faithfulness to his word, not the Jewish people’s inherent worthiness.

  16. john B says:

    Thanks for chiming In Lee: it is no use going further with this discussion… I fully agree with you “Jews do not get a free pass” for all have sin and fall short Rom3:23
    I believe that i have presented the truth on the passage taking in the broader scope of Apostolic teaching.. I have even showed from the words of Jesus to the Elders of Israel that the Kingdom that they so looked forward to would be taken from them and given to another Nation bearing the fruit thereof Mat21:43
    I have shown By Apostle Peter’s Words that this nation is God’s Holy Nation, the people of His possession 1Pet2:9, The Israel of God which Apostle Paul symbolised by the Olive tree Rom11:22 and That it is that people only which was foreknown by God Rom11:2 and not the others that were cast out Gal4:30,31…

    john B

    john B

    • Cris Putnam says:

      John B, please deal with the text of Romans 11 w/o skipping the parts inconvenient to your presuppositions. I spelled it out very clearly in the order of Paul’s argument. If I am in error, then please show me where based on my last post on Romans 11:28-32. You are not dealing with text fairly.

      As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.(Ro 11:28-32)

  17. Lee says:

    John B,

    I was thinking the same thing…best to move on and let this man sell his books!


    I can’t tell whether or not you are sincere or out to advance some agenda. I am in agreement with John B against Dispensationalism and Zionism. We have made our points known,and you have made yours.

    I think when Jesus said “It is finished”,He meant it,that there was no other way. Is God suddenly going to turn the Jews hearts toward Christ,I don’t know.

    But I believe there is only one name under heaven by which men are saved,and that applies to everyone. That’s the gospel I know.

  18. john b says:

    Cris; I think That the problem is exactly what you are asking me to Do.. an exposition on four verses on an matter that Begun when Messiah was rejected and cut off…
    There are to many other scriptures that bares upon it that must be taken into account in order to grasp the entirety of truth.. However: I’ll put one more argument forth..
    “God has not rejected His people Whom He foreknew. Or do you not Know the scriptures in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with god against Israel Rom11:2-6 …. Vs4 “What is the Divine response to Him? I have kept for myself seven thousand”…. So Cris; we understand that there is only a remnant that will be saved, and they are those Whom God foreknew……………… Those of Rom11:1 who are not rejected, or as Apostle said in Gal4:30 “cast out”
    We see here that Apostle Draws upon the prophet in order to give explanation about those Foreknown by God..
    It is never implied in the Apostles Doctrine that The entire nation Is Going to be saved… “only a Remnant” as paralleled by 1Kin19:18 these foreknown are the ones Grafted back into the Olive tree with Gentiles which is the “All Israel” of Rom11:26..

    We may never agree, but I enjoyed the discussion and I am sure many Have benefited from it..

    Blessings john B

    • Cris Putnam says:

      johnB I have never meant to imply that all Jews are saved… my point of contention is simply that God is not finished with the nation. He is making a point about his faithfulness by keeping his promises. Only those he predestined – a remnant – are actually saved. My point is that it will all go down centered on Jerusalem and the nation of Israel – simply because God said it would.

  19. Klaatu says:

    I would like to chime in on the Jesuit-Jew question.

    “As for Jesuits and Jews (I use the proper noun to err on the side of political correctness), the main principle is that neither subscribes to the Jesus of Scripture, and both are subservient to Rome. The declaration “We have no king but Caesar” is observably as binding today as it was when the priests and the pharisees uttered it during Christ’s trial.

    To those who insist that Jews run the world, I say okay, but only by the permission and appointment of Rome.

    According to Manfred Barthel, whose book on the Jesuits was submitted to several Jesuits for approval, “the Order has always had a reputation as a refuge for Jewish converts.” The second General of the Order, Diego Laynez, made clear in his autobiography that his family were prominent “New Christians,” as Jewish converts in Spain and Portugal were called.

    By the end of the 17th century, the Jesuits were suffering accusations of defiling Christian doctrine and morality with their “rabbinical-pharisaical mentality” and “subtle Talmudic incantations.”

    In 1814, however, the Jesuits turned anti-semitic. I believe this was in order to mask their collusion with the money power operated by the House of Rothschild, “guardian of the Vatican Treasury.”

    Still, behind the convenient facade of antisemitism, as Bismarck wrote (quoting Kaiser Wilhelm I), “the Jews and the Jesuits always flock together.” I think after reading RULERS OF EVIL you’ll understand how the Jesuits can simultaneously embrace, discredit, frame, and annihilate the Jews.

    The Jesuits are, after all, an army run by a General who can do anything to anyone under Rome’s jurisdiction in order to preserve the Roman State, which is evidently the New World Order.”
    — F. Tupper Saussy, February 11, 2000

    Understand, that the word “Jew” did not even exist in the known vocabulary of Jesus’ day. [1] Jesus was a Judean. A “Jew” is not a Judean. A Judean is not a Jew. Remember the Samaritans. These were fake Judeans (Hebrews). Jesus himself exposed them. (woman at the well). Samaritans were actually descendants of Babylon. Simon Magus was a Samaritan. Both Paul and Peter exposed him. Magus = Magi = Magic / Sorcerer. Justin Martyr identifies Magus in Rome. St. Peter (Simon bar Jonah) was NEVER in Rome. His bones are in Jerusalem. St. Paul never mentions Peter in Rome with him. Consult Fr. Bagatti and Milik. Specifically Bagatti to Pacelli (Pius XII) prior to his death in ’58.

    [1] The word “Jew” did not exist in the known vocabulary of this planet, until post Shakespeare (probably Bacon the Master Rosicrucian).

  20. john B says:

    Thanks for chiming in Klaatu; there certainly needs more of what you are saying to be heard among Christians.

    I believe that there is a lineage of Zionist Illuminati principality within Vatican

    Thanks for sharing.

    john B

  21. J.Johansen says:

    Great article Chris,

    John in his Revelation says Synagogoue of Satan is the enemy of Christs flock (2.9 & 3.9)

    Edward Hendrie (attorney, decipering Gods Laws ) connect the dots, stating the historical facts, that the Catolic Church = a Jewish Synagoge.
    Just look at the Popes hat. Just observe that the Pope has stated ‘Jews’ (khazars) not need salavtion by Jesus Christ… (?), because they have ‘covenant’ of their own (void and nullified by Christ)… This is facts…
    Baron Rothschild, once called ‘King of the Jews’, is Vaticans bankers. Nobody can deny it, not even themselves are denying it.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Both Catholic and Jewish theology deny the Gospel but the Catholic church is not a synagogue nor are they in league together, the Catholic church has historically been very antisemitic.


  1. […] False Roman Power […]

  2. […] Petrus Romanus The Papacy as Antichrist — Logos Apologia Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]