The Pope is the antichrist: useful or useless, true or false?

Awhile I back I had heard about Michelle Bachman being part of the WELS and leaving, in part, because she didn't want to be associated with Lutherans - who in their confessions say that the pope (or the office of the pope) is the antichrist. The media proceeded to make a big deal out of this - at least relative to the amount of media attention the WELS usually gets (none).

I had known this for a long time (I think I learned it in catechism class, but it's possible I learned it elsewhere). I'm pretty versed in Lutheran theology, so this is something that was completely unsurprising. My knowledge of why exactly the confessions say that is a bit sparse but I get the basics: during Luther's time (and before and after) popes had abused their power, prevently spread lies and false doctrine, and they were part of the church and claimed power over the what the church teaches. And that this would fit the Biblical doctrine of the antiChrist.

However, I mentioned the Bachman/WELS/pope/antichrist brouhaha to my mom thinking she would have the same reaction I had: "the media is silly and is making a big deal out of nothing." Instead her eyes got really big and she said something to the effect of "I can't believe the WELS would believe such a vile thing." And as she's an activity director for a local assisisted living facility she knows a priest who has a service there. So she continues by saying something like "I can't believe the WELS would believe the pope is the devil and that Catholics are all going to hell."

I'm totally flustered after this. My mom had just taken what I said about WELS doctrine and came to a completely wrong and unwarrented view that shows a complete misunderstanding of the WELS view of both the antichrist and Catholics (the WELS does not, in the least, believe that the pope is the devil or that all Catholics are going to hell - this has nothing at all to do with the Lutheran confessions that proclaim that the pope is the antichrist). Keep in mind that my mom went to WELS catechism class and also attended WELS Lutheran services through her entire life. I had assumed - wrong it turned out - that she knew some of the basic postions of WELS theology. Being flustered and not being very theologically astute on what the Lutheran confessions say about the antichrist I made some half hearted attempt at an explanation, but other than that I had hoped to let things run their course and not mention it again.

Of course she mentioned it to my dad - who, while Lutheran, isn't very theologically aware and an ex-Catholic - who since then has said "those WELS people are bumbling and foolish sometimes, they really say some stupid stuff." He's angry about it (but again, he has no idea of the actual theology behind it).

So I'm wondering a few things. When you were in catechism class was this doctrine explained to you? What place do you think this doctrine should have in confessional Lutheranism? Do you think it's true? As a doctrine that is politically distastful, do you think this is a topic that's necessary to teach in catechism class?

Anyway, I've been frusterated that my parents have utterly misconstrued this doctrine and have shown a lack of doctrinal knowledge that's worrisome. However, right now I'm still going to try to let sleeping dogs lie.

By the way, for full disclosure, I generally like Catholics and I believe most of them are going to heaven. I'm even reading the current pope's book Jesus of Nazerath which I think clearly shows his love for Jesus (also read his book Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures). As for the doctrine that the office of the pope is the antichrist, I'm lukewarm about it. I think it makes sense in some ways, doesn't in others, but mainly I don't have enough knowledge one way or the other to make a conclusive discision.

I know it's a lot to take in, but help me out guys. Oh and Melethiel I haven't heard from you in awhile - what's your opinion?

Actually, it says that the office of the Pope is the antichrist.

There is a discussion of this here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7577402-3/

Ukrainia said:

So I'm wondering a few things. When you were in catechism class was this doctrine explained to you?

Click to expand...

Yes it was. This is why I was shocked that Bachmann said she didn't know about it. I not only had it in my BIC, but have resources from other BIClasses and it is in those as well.

What place do you think this doctrine should have in confessional Lutheranism?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by "place". We talked about it when we covered Justification and also Eschatology.

Do you think it's true?

Click to expand...

Yes. 2 Thessalonians 2

As a doctrine that is politically distastful, do you think this is a topic that's necessary to teach in catechism class?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Preaching that those without Faith in Christ will go to hell is also politically distasteful.

By the way, for full disclosure, I generally like Catholics and I believe most of them are going to heaven. I'm even reading the current pope's book Jesus of Nazerath which I think clearly shows his love for Jesus (also read his book Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures). As for the doctrine that the office of the pope is the antichrist, I'm lukewarm about it. I think it makes sense in some ways, doesn't in others, but mainly I don't have enough knowledge one way or the other to make a conclusive discision.

Click to expand...

I have Roman Catholic family and love them dearly, this has nothing to do with hating anybody.

Right or wrong, having such a doctrine in these days of Ecumensim and Modernism is most definitely NOT politically correct.

Useful, to weed out anti-Catholics, but doctrinally as a whole, useless. No one is doing anything about it, so it must not be that big of a deal.

.


IMO, this view is false.


Why?


Let's look at what God tells us in His holy Word....


The "antichrist" is mentioned four times in Scripture:

1 John 2:18-19, "Children, it is the last hour and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they came out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us."

1 John 2:22, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such is a deceiver and the antichrist."


So, here's what God has told us about this matter:

1. There are many antichrists.

2. There were many when First John was penned (probably in the 90's)

3. Such is a person or persons.

4. Such was once a clear part of the church but clearly left.

5. Such denies that Jesus is the Christ.

6. Such denies the Father and the Son.

7. Such denies the coming of Christ "in the flesh"



So, does the papacy qualify? IMO, no. The papacy is an office, not a person. It did not exist in 90 AD. There are not several of them. The office of the papacy does not deny that Jesus is the Christ, does not deny that Father and the Son, or that Christ will come "in the flesh." IMO, this office does not meet the biblical qualifications for "antichrist(s)."



What about other perspectives?

So, does the current pope qualify? IMO, no. He did not exist in the 90's. He is one, not "many." He does not deny that Jesus is the Christ or is coming "in the flesh" and does not deny the Father and the Son.

So, could the current pope be AN antichrist? One of perhaps dozens, hundreds or thousands of such? Well, again - he hasn't left Christianity, he doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ, he doesn't deny the Father and the Son, and (as far as I know) doesn't deny that Jesus will return "in the flesh." He doesn't seem to meet the biblical definition and description.


I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's my current perspective. I'm MORE than open to discussing these 4 verses and if the specifics of the Office of the Papacy (and it alone) meets the specifics of "antichrist(s)" according to them.






.

I was about to write up a response, but what is the point. I am not wasting my time, we already have a thread trashing God's Word and one on homosexual clergy, this is just one more wad of paper in the trash can for some of you and anything I write will not change a single thing.

I am out. Goodby (again lol)


It is sad that you have to come into the Lutheran sub forum and defend the confessions against "Lutherans".


*I will say this on my way out*

Once again I have Roman Catholic family and friends that I love dearly, I do not hate people that are Roman Catholic, BUT am I anti-Roman Cathoic? YES! How could I be anything but Roman Catholic if that were not the case??? If I understand and believe God's Word to say "X, Y, Z" then anything else is false and contrary to what God says and that is NOT something that should be taken so lightly! Like the ecumenical nonsense that some of you fall for. You get strung along with garbage like the JDDJ and are made into fools since nothing had changed doctrinally, its all just a illusion. Yeah I understand that Rome had a facelift ("Kinder gentler antichrist, handing out anathemas with a smile!), but read Trent or any other document condemning what the confessions say and then look for some retraction. I am not talking about some apologetic babble redefining what was said, glossing things over, I am talking about an official papal document, bull whatever taking back what was said and it never happens.

So yeah... that's about it.

Take care!

CaliforniaJosiah said:

IMO, this view is false...

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you qualified this with "IMO". It is clear that your opinion does not meet with Scripture, the Confessions, or traditional Lutheran teachings.

Rechtgläubig;58445961 said:

I was about to write up a response, but what is the point. I am not wasting my time, we already have a thread trashing God's Word and one on homosexual clergy, this is just one more wad of paper in the trash can for some of you and anything I write will not change a single thing.

I am out. Goodby (again lol)


It is sad that you have to come into the Lutheran sub forum and defend the confessions against "Lutherans".


*I will say this on my way out*

Once again I have Roman Catholic family and friends that I love dearly, I do not hate people that are Roman Catholic, BUT am I anti-Roman Cathoic? YES! How could I be anything but Roman Catholic if that were not the case??? If I understand and believe God's Word to say "X, Y, Z" then anything else is false and contrary to what God says and that is NOT something that should be taken so lightly! Like the ecumenical nonsense that some of you fall for. You get strung along with garbage like the JDDJ and are made into fools since nothing had changed doctrinally, its all just a illusion. Yeah I understand that Rome had a facelift ("Kinder gentler antichrist, handing out anathemas with a smile!), but read Trent or any other document condemning what the confessions say and then look for some retraction. I am not talking about some apologetic babble redefining what was said, glossing things over, I am talking about an official papal document, bull whatever taking back what was said and it never happens.

So yeah... that's about it.

Take care!

Click to expand...

Who are you directing this at??

DaRev said:

Josiah said:

IMO, this view is false.


Why?


Let's look at what God tells us in His holy Word....


The "antichrist" is mentioned four times in Scripture:

1 John 2:18-19, "Children, it is the last hour and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they came out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us."

1 John 2:22, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such is a deceiver and the antichrist."


So, here's what God has told us about this matter:

1. There are many antichrists.

2. There were many when First John was penned (probably in the 90's)

3. Such is a person or persons.

4. Such was once a clear part of the church but clearly left.

5. Such denies that Jesus is the Christ.

6. Such denies the Father and the Son.

7. Such denies the coming of Christ "in the flesh"



So, does the papacy qualify? IMO, no. The papacy is an office, not a person. It did not exist in 90 AD. There are not several of them. The office of the papacy does not deny that Jesus is the Christ, does not deny that Father and the Son, or that Christ will come "in the flesh." IMO, this office does not meet the biblical qualifications for "antichrist(s)."



What about other perspectives?

So, does the current pope qualify? IMO, no. He did not exist in the 90's. He is one, not "many." He does not deny that Jesus is the Christ or is coming "in the flesh" and does not deny the Father and the Son.

So, could the current pope be AN antichrist? One of perhaps dozens, hundreds or thousands of such? Well, again - he hasn't left Christianity, he doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ, he doesn't deny the Father and the Son, and (as far as I know) doesn't deny that Jesus will return "in the flesh." He doesn't seem to meet the biblical definition and description.


I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's my current perspective. I'm MORE than open to discussing these 4 verses and if the specifics of the Office of the Papacy (and it alone) meets the specifics of "antichrist(s)" according to them.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you qualified this with "IMO". It is clear that your opinion does not meet with Scripture.

Click to expand...

As stated, " I'm MORE than open to discussing these 4 verses and if the specifics of the Office of the Papacy (and it alone) meets the specifics of "antichrist(s)" according to them." IF such is the desire of any, MY hope would be such would be normed solely by the 4 verses that speak of the "antichrist(s)" and NOT be, in any way, disparaging toward ANYONE'S faith or "Lutheranism," but rather an exegetical look at the 4 verses and then a specific comparison to the Office of the Papacy, with the question being: "Does that Office, and it alone, meet the requirements for "antichrist" as described in the 4 verses that speak of such." I in no way desire to get into a "debate" of anyone's "genuine Lutheranism" or sincerity or articles of faith, nor is such within the constrains of this thread.




Pax


- Josiah


.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

As stated, " I'm MORE than open to discussing these 4 verses and if the specifics of the Office of the Papacy (and it alone) meets the specifics of "antichrist(s)" according to them." IF such is the desire of any, MY hope would be such would be normed solely by the 4 verses that speak of the "antichrist(s)" and NOT be, in any way, disparaging toward ANYONE'S faith or "Lutheranism," but rather an exegetical look at the 4 verses and then a specific comparison to the Office of the Papacy, with the question being: "Does that Office, and it alone, meet the requirements for "antichrist" as described in the 4 verses that speak of such." I in no way desire to get into a "debate" of anyone's "genuine Lutheranism" or sincerity or articles of faith, nor is such within the constrains of this thread.

Click to expand...

Are you a confessing member of an LCMS congregation?

From the LCMS website:

Q: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

A: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod's Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves.
We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist cold change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.
At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on "Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.​

Click to expand...

Also, read the Treatise.

DaRev said:

Josiah said:

Let's look at what God tells us in His holy Word....


The "antichrist" is mentioned four times in Scripture:

1 John 2:18-19, "Children, it is the last hour and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they came out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us."

1 John 2:22, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such is a deceiver and the antichrist."


So, here's what God has told us about this matter:

1. There are many antichrists.

2. There were many when First John was penned (probably in the 90's)

3. Such is a person or persons.

4. Such was once a clear part of the church but clearly left.

5. Such denies that Jesus is the Christ.

6. Such denies the Father and the Son.

7. Such denies the coming of Christ "in the flesh"



So, does the papacy qualify? IMO, no. The papacy is an office, not a person. It did not exist in 90 AD. There are not several of them. The office of the papacy does not deny that Jesus is the Christ, does not deny that Father and the Son, or that Christ will come "in the flesh." IMO, this office does not meet the biblical qualifications for "antichrist(s)."



What about other perspectives?

So, does the current pope qualify? IMO, no. He did not exist in the 90's. He is one, not "many." He does not deny that Jesus is the Christ or is coming "in the flesh" and does not deny the Father and the Son.

So, could the current pope be AN antichrist? One of perhaps dozens, hundreds or thousands of such? Well, again - he hasn't left Christianity, he doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ, he doesn't deny the Father and the Son, and (as far as I know) doesn't deny that Jesus will return "in the flesh." He doesn't seem to meet the biblical definition and description.


I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's my current perspective. I'm MORE than open to discussing these 4 verses and if the specifics of the Office of the Papacy (and it alone) meets the specifics of "antichrist(s)" according to them.



As stated, " I'm MORE than open to discussing these 4 verses and if the specifics of the Office of the Papacy (and it alone) meets the specifics of "antichrist(s)" according to them." IF such is the desire of any, MY hope would be such would be normed solely by the 4 verses that speak of the "antichrist(s)" and NOT be, in any way, disparaging toward ANYONE'S faith or "Lutheranism," but rather an exegetical look at the 4 verses and then a specific comparison to the Office of the Papacy, with the question being: "Does that Office, and it alone, meet the requirements for "antichrist" as described in the 4 verses that speak of such." I in no way desire to get into a "debate" of anyone's "genuine Lutheranism" or sincerity or articles of faith, nor is such within the constrains of this thread.

Click to expand...

Are you a confessing member of an LCMS congregation?

Click to expand...

The issue here is not the LCMS or me.
The issue here is whether the Papacy (or the Pope or the Office of the Papacy) is, specifically, "the antichrist?" That (as I understand it) is what we are permitted to discuss here.


I quoted the 4 verses that mention the antichrist(s).
I noted the given characteristics of such.
As far as I understand the Office of the Papacy, it doesn't qualify.
If you disagree - I welcome you stating why. If you desire, quote from any (or all) of the 4 verses, note the descriptions specifically given for "antichrist(s)" and, if you regard as correct, how the Office of the Papacy - and it alone - meets all those qualifications so specified. We'd WELCOME that and would read it with interest.


Please carefully note: I don't think it good (or perhaps even permitted) to turn this into a disparaging commentary on ANYONE'S faith or "Lutheran-ness."



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

The issue here is not the LCMS or me.
The issue here is whether the Papacy (or the Pope or the Office of the Papacy) is, specifically, "the antichrist?" That (as I understand it) is what we are permitted to discuss here.


I quoted the 4 verses that mention the antichrist(s).
I noted the given characteristics of such.
As far as I understand the Office of the Papacy, it doesn't qualify.
If you disagree - I welcome you stating why. If you desire, quote from any (or all) of the 4 verses, note the descriptions specifically given for "antichrist(s)" and, if you regard as correct, how the Office of the Papacy - and it alone - meets all those qualifications so specified. We'd WELCOME that and would read it with interest.


Please carefully note: I don't think it good (or perhaps even permitted) to turn this into a disparaging commentary on ANYONE'S faith or "Lutheran-ness."



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

Click to expand...

Did you read the rest of what I posted?
Did you read the Treatise?
I believe they answer your question.

When speaking of Romish doctrine the evidence is manifest that the papacy is the Antichrist. The pope claims the right to alter the teachings of the Lord Christ and to change the form of worship. The pope claims to be infallible (Vatican Council I) as if he were God Almighty. The papacy is responsible for the abomination called the "sacrifice of the mass" a blasphemy that attempts to utterly nullify all that Christ accomplished on the cross. He makes salvation dependent on the observance of Roman laws and membership in the Roman church to the extent that the promise and sweet consolation of the Gospel are obscured. Are the individual popes the Antichrist? Not necessarily, however, I cannot think of an office on earth more godless and Antichristian than the Roman papacy.

DaRev said:

Did you read the rest of what I posted?

Click to expand...

I did. It rather strongly confirmed my thoughts.




.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I did. It rather strongly confirmed my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Try reading it again, with your eyes open this time. It explains precisely what the Scriptures say and what the Confessional Lutheran Church believes.

bach90 said:

Josiah said:

Let's look at what God tells us in His holy Word....


The "antichrist" is mentioned four times in Scripture:

1 John 2:18-19, "Children, it is the last hour and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they came out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us."

1 John 2:22, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such is a deceiver and the antichrist."


So, here's what God has told us about this matter:

1. There are many antichrists.

2. There were many when First John was penned (probably in the 90's)

3. Such is a person or persons.

4. Such was once a clear part of the church but clearly left.

5. Such denies that Jesus is the Christ.

6. Such denies the Father and the Son.

7. Such denies the coming of Christ "in the flesh"

Click to expand...

When speaking of Romish doctrine the evidence is manifest that the papacy is the Antichrist. The pope claims the right to alter the teachings of the Lord Christ and to change the form of worship.

Click to expand...

Thank you!


IF I may ask some questions.....


1. I'm struggling to see how that fulfills the biblical definition of "antichrist" in the 4 Scriptures that speak of such.

2. In Catholicism, the Pope can't change anything - he can confirm (and also declare as dogma) what is already being taught in that denomination. Your observation, IMO, might apply to the bishops of the RCC (of which the Pope technically is one) but not to the Pope, exclusively.

3. The OFFICE of the Papacy can't say or do anything - only he in it can. Thus, how can the OFFICE be the antichrist?

4. IMO, your observation applies to MANY (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Mary Baker Eddy and MANY more, some here might include Jerry Kieschnick and the entire ELCA, lol). How does that make the OFFICE of the Papacy THE "antichrist?" Or are you saying that the OFFICE of the Papacy is not THE "antichrist" but one of very MANY?"


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Thank you!


IF I may ask some questions.....


1. I'm struggling to see how that fulfills the biblical definition of "antichrist" in the 4 Scriptures that speak of such.

2. In Catholicism, the Pope can't change anything - he can confirm (and also declare as dogma) what is already being taught in that denomination. Your observation, IMO, might apply to the bishops of the RCC (of which the Pope technically is one) but not to the Pope, exclusively.

3. The OFFICE of the Papacy can't say or do anything - only he in it can. Thus, how can the OFFICE be the antichrist?

4. IMO, your observation applies to MANY (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Mary Baker Eddy and MANY more, some here might include Jerry Kieschnick and the entire ELCA, lol). How does that make the OFFICE of the Papacy THE "antichrist?" Or are you saying that the OFFICE of the Papacy is not THE "antichrist" but one of very MANY?"


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

Click to expand...

Scripture speaks of many antichrists (which I would submit is the context that Blessed John is writing about). However, St. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2:1-12 that there will be one Antichrist, esp v. 4 "who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." It is my understanding that Lutherans have used this passage of Scripture when dealing with the question of Antichrist.

In Roman Catholicism their teaching is that they are not creating or changing anything, but in reality most of what is called tradition is the creation of the human mind. One glaring example is the Immaculate Conception. Thomas Aquinas explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception. [Thomas Aquinas held Mary was conceived with Original Sin, but cleansed from it in the womb]. However Pope Pius IX declared that the Immaculate Conception comes from tradition and must be believed. Also as regards to other Bishops, the pope claims to be above all other Bishops, indeed to be above all authority whether human (government and nations) or Divine (the Bible).

Also Roman Catholic Councils have contradicted themselves:

bach90 said:

Scripture speaks of many antichrists (which I would submit is the context that Blessed John is writing about). However, St. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2:1-12 that there will be one Antichrist, esp v. 4 "who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

Click to expand...

Thank you! I appreciate your thoughts!



MY thoughts:


1. 2 Thess. 2:1-12 never mentions the anti-christ(s). At all.

2. There is no basis to associate (much less equate) the two. Especially since "anti-christ(s) were already present - in abundance - whereas this "man of lawlessness" is singular and in the future. Also, the characteristics of "anti-christ(s)" and "man of lawlessness" are distinctively (and at every point) different. IF there was some teaching that Pope Benedict is "the Man of Lawlessness," I'd see some relevance of these Scriptures - although I'm not sure the descriptions herein match Pope Benedict and to him EXCLUSIVELY as THE "Man of Lawlessness" (we might just agree to disagree on that). But in any case, IMO, we are way off topic. This is speaking of some future man, "the man of lawlessness," not "anti-christ(s)."

3. It seems to ME that the "Man of Lawlessness" is a man. I'm not understanding how this refers to an OFFICE and not to ANY man. How does an OFFICE "perform miracles, signs and wonders" for example?

In Roman Catholicism their teaching is that they are not creating or changing anything, but in reality most of what is called tradition is the creation of the human mind. One glaring example is the Immaculate Conception. Thomas Aquinas explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception. [Thomas Aquinas held Mary was conceived with Original Sin, but cleansed from it in the womb]. However Pope Pius IX declared that the Immaculate Conception comes from tradition and must be believed. Also as regards to other Bishops, the pope claims to be above all other Bishops, indeed to be above all authority whether human (government and nations) or Divine (the Bible).

Click to expand...

I could not agree more! I'm just not seeing where that makes the OFFICE (not any person) of the PAPACY the specific, exclusive "anti-christ" (as revealed in 4 verses - 3 in First John, one in Second John). And, at least as I understand it, the OFFICE cannot proclaim anything not already being taught as true by the bishops (actually, obviosly, an OFFICE can't teach anything - only the one(s) in it), whatever the Pope may say that is not already being affirmed by consensus - is in no sense authoritative or binding, thus the OFFICE doesn't declare or change anything (or even the Pope), you'd need to look to the consensus of bishops for that. And of course, a LOT of that has never been affirmed by the Pope (and never by the OFFICE of the Pope).

Also Roman Catholic Councils have contradicted themselves

Click to expand...

I again completely agree! But where is it stated THAT is the specific definition of an "anti-christ?" If you study Anglicanism, it's full of contradictions, too. Why isn't it the anti-christ?



It does. I hope my posts help to clarify mine!


Blessings to you!


- Josiah





.

I am intrigued by this thesis that an office can be an anti-Christ. I always thought that a person was an anti-Christ. I can kind of understand the concept, in the sense that Luther believed that the Papacy itself was anti-Christ. However, it seems to me that it is a bit of a stetch to say that an office can be "an" anti-Christ. Perhaps it is a play on words and does not matter much. I do not know. All I know is that in these modern times of Ecumensim and Modernism, this doctrine would probably make it difficult for any WELS or LC-MS candidate for President to ever get elected and that is almost certainly why Rep. Bachmann withdrew her membership in the WELS.

bach90 said:

Scripture speaks of many antichrists (which I would submit is the context that Blessed John is writing about). However, St. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2:1-12 that there will be one Antichrist, esp v. 4 "who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." It is my understanding that Lutherans have used this passage of Scripture when dealing with the question of Antichrist.

In Roman Catholicism their teaching is that they are not creating or changing anything, but in reality most of what is called tradition is the creation of the human mind. One glaring example is the Immaculate Conception. Thomas Aquinas explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception. [Thomas Aquinas held Mary was conceived with Original Sin, but cleansed from it in the womb]. However Pope Pius IX declared that the Immaculate Conception comes from tradition and must be believed. Also as regards to other Bishops, the pope claims to be above all other Bishops, indeed to be above all authority whether human (government and nations) or Divine (the Bible).

Also Roman Catholic Councils have contradicted themselves:

Council of Florence, Cantate Domino: It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.​

Vatican Council II, Nostra Aetate: the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.​

The Office is the only possible explanation according to Scripture. The Antichrist will be present until the end of the world (2 Thess 2:8) when the Antichrist will be destroyed. Death prevents any human being from fulfilling this prophecy. Also the individual popes do not ascribe power to themselves, but by virtue of their office. The office of the Papacy is set up in place of Christ (the vicar of Christ), literally Antichrist. It would be easier and make more sense to claim a human being is the Antichrist, but it doesn't fit with Scripture. Antichrist has been around for a long time (before he was revealed in the Reformation) and will continue to set himself against the Church until the end of time.​

Sort of related to question 1, anybody who denies Christ is Antichrist (this would include Joseph Smith etc.) as well as false religions. However Rome claims to be the Church that Christ founded even though its doctrine overthrows the Gospel. When confronting other religions you know they are not claiming to be Christian, whereas the papacy claims to be Christian, yet is not. Who is more dangerous on a battlefield, the enemy you know or the enemy you don't?​

Hope that clarifies my thoughts! ​

Click to expand...

I am 100% convinced that the RCC has contradicted itself on the salvation doctrine. I do not know how any independent researcher could come to any other conclusion. The Vatican II teaching on salvation for non-Catholics is certainly NOT the same as what was infallibly taught in the Papal Bull, Cantate Domino, which you so rightfully quoted.