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

[DaRev]

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?

One thing that I think is missing is that an Office exists when it is occupied. It's like when a congregation loses its pastor, either through another call, retirement, death, etc. That congregation doesn't have a pastor. That office there does not exist until one is called.

The Pope is a man. Only one man can be Pope at a time. So, in essence, there is always a Pope. While different individuals may occupy that office, there is only one Pope. The office does not act, the man occupying that office acts. And when he acts in accord with that office, he is antichrist. This is what Luther speaks of, what the Confessions speak of, and what Scripture supports.

 

[lux et lex]

Except when there were two popes. Great Schism: 1378-1415

 

[Basil the Great]

Lux - For a short time at the end of the Great Schism, there were even three Popes at once. This apparently scared the church enough so that they settled on one Pope.

 

[DaRev]

Except when there were two popes. Great Schism: 1378-1415

Lux - For a short time at the end of the Great Schism, there were even three Popes at once. This apparently scared the church enough so that they settled on one Pope.

Only one during each reign is recognized by the RCC:
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)

 

[JM]

Pretty much all evangelical protestant confessions state this including Reformed and Baptist.

 

[JTornado1]

Last year, my Bible study teacher said that Santa Claus is the Antichrist.

 

[Basil the Great]

One thing that I think is missing is that an Office exists when it is occupied. It's like when a congregation loses its pastor, either through another call, retirement, death, etc. That congregation doesn't have a pastor. That office there does not exist until one is called.

The Pope is a man. Only one man can be Pope at a time. So, in essence, there is always a Pope. While different individuals may occupy that office, there is only one Pope. The office does not act, the man occupying that office acts. And when he acts in accord with that office, he is antichrist. This is what Luther speaks of, what the Confessions speak of, and what Scripture supports.

Rev - My mom's close friend is a member of the LC-MS. I discussed this matter at dinner with her yesterday. She told me that there is not much difference between saying that the office of the Papacy is anti-Christ and saying that the Pope is an anti-Christ.

 

[Bryne]

There is a difference, though...it may be a subtle difference, but it is a difference, none the less.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

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.

.

I don't understand how an institutional OFFICE CAN meet the criteria of "antichrist(s)."

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"

How is it even POSSIBLE for an Office of the RC Denomination to meet those criteria? How CAN an OFFICE be a person? Be clearly a part of the church but left? How can IT deny Jesus is the Christ and deny the Father and the Son and that Jesus is returning in the flesh? An office has no mind, no heart, no soul, no faith, no ABILITY to think, say, believe or deny anything. Yes, one can say that every Bishop of Rome from Peter on has been AN "antichrist" (if such can be documented that everyone met/meets the 7 characteristics of such) but I think the view is that the Bishops of Rome are "antichrist(s)" but rather an OFFICE of the RC Denomination.








.

 

[prophecyistrue]

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?

not the antichrist but his side kick the false prophet

 

[DaRev]

Rev - My mom's close friend is a member of the LC-MS. I discussed this matter at dinner with her yesterday. She told me that there is not much difference between saying that the office of the Papacy is anti-Christ and saying that the Pope is an anti-Christ.

This is true since the title is associated with the office.

 

[DaRev]

How is it even POSSIBLE for an Office of the RC Denomination to meet those criteria? How CAN an OFFICE be a person? Be clearly a part of the church but left? How can IT deny Jesus is the Christ and deny the Father and the Son and that Jesus is returning in the flesh? An office has no mind, no heart, no soul, no faith, no ABILITY to think, say, believe or deny anything. Yes, one can say that every Bishop of Rome from Peter on has been AN "antichrist" (if such can be documented that everyone met/meets the 7 characteristics of such) but I think the view is that the Bishops of Rome are "antichrist(s)" but rather an OFFICE of the RC Denomination.

First, it's obvious you haven't read anything that has been posted in response to this question you keep asking. It has been answered satisfactorily. Second, as has also been answered previously, the papacy is not the ONLY antichrist. There have been and will be others. Thirdly, as has been answered previously, the Office only exists when it is occupied, thus it's not the Office in and of itself but the one who occupies and carries out its functions. If you don't want to accept the Biblical and Confessional teaching on the matter, that's your choice. You are in disagreement with the Confessional Lutheran Church on this issue.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

First, it's obvious you haven't read anything that has been posted in response to this question you keep asking. It has been answered satisfactorily.

Respectfully, from my perspective, it's been entirely ignored. Which is okay, of course.

Second, as has also been answered previously, the papacy is not the ONLY antichrist.

Then it CANNOT be said that the RC Denomination's "OFFICE of the Papacy" is THE antichrist.

Nor has it been shown that the RC Denomination's OFFICE of the Papacy meets the biblical description of antichrist(s) (see quote). It has not even been attempted to show that that RC Office meets those criteria.







.

 

[DaRev]

Respectfully, from my perspective, it's been entirely ignored. Which is okay, of course.

Then it CANNOT be said that the RC Denomination's "OFFICE of the Papacy" is THE antichrist.

Nor has it been shown that the RC Denomination's OFFICE of the Papacy meets the biblical description of antichrist(s) (see quote). It has not even been attempted to show that that RC Office meets those criteria.

Well, then you simply haven't read what's been posted. That's your choice. If you refuse to read the answers that have been given that's your choice. But you'll need to stop asking the question over and over. It's just demonstrating your arrogance on the matter. The Confessions support it, the Scripture supports it, and you've been directed to both. But don't say "it's been entirely ignored". It hasn't. It's been answered.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I know I've posted this link before, but Josiah, if you can't find the answers to your questions in this article, then it's rather clear to me you're reading for answers that aren't there:

Statement on the antichrist | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

The statement gives ample scriptural proof as to the papacy/pope being the Antichrist.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I know I've posted this link before,

Statement on the antichrist | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

The statement gives ample scriptural proof as to the papacy/pope being the Antichrist.

Yes, you gave this before and I read it very carefully at that time. And PLEASE understand - I have NO desire or intent to debate the issue. If you choose to embrace this, that's okay by me. I'm simply addressing the issue of the thread: is it true (the other issue, "is it helpful" is one wholly dependent on the first).


No, the wonderful article you again reference doesn't indicate why the OFFICE of the RC Papacy is THE "antichrist". It does give a nice history of it within Lutheranism and reveals a confusion (and a bouncing back and forth) between the OFFICE and varies men, making it totally unclear which is the case: the OFFICE or every bishop of Rome including and since Peter. It also reveals, IMO, that there is zero consideration given to God's Holy Word - the Scriptures that state the criteria (6 or 7 of them) that John, by inspiration, gives in the 4 verses that speak of the antichrist(s). I must say, as a new Lutheran, that concerns me just a bit (just a bit) - one of the things that impressed me SO much about Lutheranism as I came out of Catholicism was the supreme role of Scripture, the profound respect for what Scripture says and does not say, and the humility to stick with Scripture.

And I note that the issue here is NOT whether some Lutherans may or may not have had this view, or even whether the Confessions say if a current OFFICE of the RC denomination is THE "antichrist" or if they say that all the bishops of Rome from Peter - Benedict VI are all "antichrists" (so that there are many of them, but no more than one at any given time) or if those many bishops are AMONG the "antichrists." But, what I (emphasis on I) note is the profound (and kind of shocking) lack of concern for what John, by divine inspiration, penned concerning the anti-christ(s), how there seems to be so little concern (or even interest) in whether this OFFICE (or all the bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI) meets the specific criteria John by divine inspiration gives concerning this/these "antichrist(s)" in the 4 Scriptures that speak of it. How Lutherans today handle this kind of bothers me, just a tad, as a fairly new Lutheran. It seems VERY out of the ordinary, VERY contra to how other views are handled. Just ME. Just MY notation. Just MY discomfort.


Again, the issue before us is NOT if it is believed, the issue is if it's TRUE: That the current RC Denomination's OFFICE of the Papacy is THE (unique, exclusive) "antichrist" as John defines and describes such in Holy Scripture OR all the bishops from Peter - the last that will exists are all, in turn, the "antichrist" in series (one at a time, but one in all times). The issue is this: Is it TRUE? Lutherans USUALLY address that by going to Scripture - very carefully, humbly.


Thanks for the discussion (so far). I've learned a lot!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It is the office and the man holding the office.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

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."



.

It is the office and the man holding the office.

Beckie - just for my own edification....


Are you saying:
1. SCRIPTURE says it's both?
2. Your understanding of the Lutheran Confessions says it's both?
3. YOU understand it as both?


If you would, could you go through the 4 verses and, as specifically as possible, show:

1. How the current OFFICE of the RC Denomination of the Papacy - that institutional, denominational office - fulfills each of the criteria John by divine inspiration pens? And ONLY that specific Office?

2. How every Bishop of Rome, Peter until whoever holds that office when Christ's returns, each in series, in turn, fulfills each of the critera John by divine inspiration pens? And ONLY those men - one at a time?


Beckie - I mean no disrespect at all and I do NOT want to debate ANYONE'S faith at this point (you know me, that's not me). NOR can we discuss if it's believed or if the Confessions teach such. MY "issue" is singular: Among the things that impressed me about Lutheranism SO much to convert to it and finally be Confirmed in it was the profound respect for God's Holy Word, how things taught are clearly biblical - avoiding embracing what is NOT there and embracing what is there - in a very, very, very careful, respectful and often very historical way. From my CURRENT perspective, this seems like a glaring exception. I TOTALLY understand the polemics of the day that likely gave rise to this - and I'm more than willing and able to view it in that light. I can even understand how one can say that the RC Denomination (why limit it to the Papacy, the Papacy doesn't form doctrines, the Bishops in concert do) is "AN antichrist" in the same way that some declared Jerry Kieshnick to be a "false teacher" but does that make HIM - and him alone - THE "antichrist(s)" as SCRIPTURE in the 4 verses about declares or is this OUR view? Beckie, Lutherans are typically PROFOUNDLY careful about doctrinal statements. I'm just amazed (yes, its' ME), yeah amazed, by how some Lutherans handle THIS issue. I don't know if it's because they just feel they must defend everything Lutherans ever thought or what they think is taught in the Confessions or what - I don't know. But it does amaze (and kinda disappoint) THIS Lutheran. It seems so amazingly contrary to how we address other things. That's just MY current perspective - I don't expect or seek ANYONE to share my perspective (but it would be cool if they at least acknowledge it as a perspective).


Just my half cent....


NO offense implied or extended. EVERY respect given.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[DaRev]

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."

You are limiting the word of God on the matter to just 3 verses. To do so is in error. The word "Trinity" appears no where in Scripture and yet the Bible is repleat with teachings that affirm the Triune nature of God. In the same way,the Scriptures teach about the antichrist in more than just those 3 verses.

As I have asked you before, please read the Treatise linked to here. It explains where in the Scriptures the evidence can be found and the Confessional basis for such a claim.

 

[mdseverin]

Does the LCMS believe the office of Pope/Pope is the antichrist? If you look at page 2 on the WELS link, it says,

"Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy). We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as we do. If there were a clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so. Therefore the quotation from Lehre und Wehre [in 1904 by Dr. Stoeckhardt which identifies the Papacy as Antichrist] goes too far. This view was endorsed by the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Convention in Houston in 1953."

Then on page 3 it goes on to say a new statement was drafted and the WELS adopted the "Statement on the Antichrist" in 1959 but the LCMS never formally did.

Just looking for clarification if this is only a WELS view. If it is not, can someone point me in the direction to what the LCMS believes?