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

[DaRev]

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

There is a quote in this post.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are limiting the word of God on the matter to just 3 verses.

The only verses that speak of such.

And they give very specific criteria for such.

Does the current RC Denomination institutional OFFICE of "the papacy" and it alone meet all those criteria? Or does every Bishop of Rome from Peter until Christ returns all (and they alone) meet such?





.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Josiah, certainly the scriptures don't say "The Pope/Papacy will be the Antichrist." There was no "pope" then. Based on the criteria given by scriptures, we can look at the papacy (both the office and the man) and say that yes, they fit the criteria. The office sets itself (and the man holding the position) in place of Christ. It has the ability to "correct" scriptures. It teaches false salvation (ie, salvation by works rather than by faith as well as salvation ONLY through the Catholic Church and the Pope).

To highlight what the Treatise says:

​

Refer to The Historical Introductions for more information about the development of the Treatise.
A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537

1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
5] Now, in order that our proof [reason and opinion] may be [better] understood, we shall first define what they call being above all [what it means that he boasts of being supreme] by divine right. For they mean that he is universal [that the Pope is the general bishop over the entire Christian Church], or, as they say, ecumenical bishop, i.e., from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the entire world ought to seek ordination and [confirmation, who [alone] is to have the right of electing, ordaining, confirming, deposing all bishops [and pastors]. 6] Besides this, he arrogates to himself the authority to make [all kinds of] laws concerning acts of worship, concerning changing the Sacraments [and] concerning doctrine, and wishes his articles, his decrees, his laws [his statutes and ordinances] to be considered equal to the divine laws [to other articles of the Christian Creed and the Holy Scriptures], i.e., he holds that by the papal laws the consciences of men are so bound that those who neglect them, even without public offense, sin mortally [that they cannot be omitted without sin. For he wishes to found this power upon divine right and the Holy Scriptures; yea, he wishes to have it preferred to the Holy Scriptures and God's commands]. And what he adds is still more horrible, namely, that it is necessary to believe all these things in order to be saved [all these things shall and must be believed at the peril of forfeiting salvation].
7] In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.
8] I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another, one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.
II. Matt. 18:2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom places a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.
9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.
10] IV. Gal. 2:7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed [and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right [if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] without consulting Peter. Also: Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person). And: They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. Since Paul, then, clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that it was not from this one individual Peter that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this one person, Peter, alone].
11] V. In 1 Cor. 3:6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: "Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

That's some pretty heavy duty evidence there, Josiah.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, certainly the scriptures don't say "The Pope/Papacy will be the Antichrist." There was no "pope" then. Based on the criteria given by scriptures, we can look at the papacy (both the office and the man) and say that yes, they fit the criteria.

Okay.


So, if you desire and if you would, please do one or both of the following:


1. For the specific, current, institutional, OFFICE of the RC Denomination known as "the papacy," please show that IT - and IT alone (as "THE antichrist") meet all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below).


2. For every Bishop of Rome, Peter to and through the current Pope (since I don't know how you would do this for all future bishops of Rome), show that all of them, in series, each one but one at a given time, meets all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below)


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."




Thank you! Blessings!



Pax




-Josiah






.

 

[DaRev]

We've beat this to death. The Scriptures and the Confessions explain it adequately.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

We've beat this to death. The Scriptures and the Confessions explain it adequately.

Yes.

Josiah, you're too narrowly focused. It's not just those three small tiny areas of the bible that address those that come in place of Christ. As I highlighted, there are several passages that pertain to the definition of the antichrist, even if the passages themselves do not refer to the antichrist.

You've had several learned and knowledgeable men (and some women, although much of what I've written here came from the mouth of my husband) show you how the office fits the bill.

At this point in time, this is no different than you asking me to prove that the sky is blue because it's gray in your neck of the woods. I think you are too bogged down in one area and until you can expand your scope, I can't help you.

 

[lux et lex]

Interesting how three small passages don't matter here, but in other realms they certainly do.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Okay.


So, if you desire and if you would, please do one or both of the following:


1. For the specific, current, institutional, OFFICE of the RC Denomination known as "the papacy," please show that IT - and IT alone (as "THE antichrist") meet all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below).


2. For every Bishop of Rome, Peter to and through the current Pope (since I don't know how you would do this for all future bishops of Rome), show that all of them, in series, each one but one at a given time, meets all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below)


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."




Thank you! Blessings!



Pax



-Josiah



.

Yes.


Josiah, you're too narrowly focused. It's not just those three small tiny areas of the bible.

1. There are three verses that speak of the "antichrist(s)." Here - and only here - GOD Himself uses that term and God Himself speaks directly to that position in His Holy Word. Here and only here God Himself directly and specifically lays out the criteria for us, in His Holy Word. IF we are going to use GOD'S term, doesn't it matter that such clearly meets all the criteria that GOD specifically and directly gives to such, in His Holy Word?


2. IF there are other Scriptures that apply in some secondary sense, by implication - fine, but first is it not sound to meet the criteria of Holy Scripture that specifically and directly speak to the issue, what God Himself specifically says the criteria are? Is this unreasonable?


3. At least begin by showing that either the current institutional OFFICE of the RC Denomination of "the Papacy" meets each and all of the specific criteria that GOD gives to an position GOD specifically and directly names and defines in His Holy Scripture - and that only that OFFICE does. And/or that every bishop of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI - each and every, in turn- meets all the specific criteria God Himself clearly gives specifically to "antichrist(s)" GOD Himself speaks of in His Holy Word - and only those men in series, exclusively. IF each of those criteria God gives to us in His Holy Word are met as God outlines in His Holy Word, then yes - I agree - you may ADD implications from other Scriptures, as well, insisting THOSE things must be meet AS WELL, in addition, but I don't agree you can then just ignore that GOD Himself specifically, clearly, directly said in His Holy Word about a position He Himself directly defines. Does that seem unreasonable? Is it unlutheran?

As I highlighted, there are several passages that pertain to the definition of the antichrist, even if the passages themselves do not refer to the antichrist.

1. You noted no reason why we are to equate all these various other ideas with "antichrist(s)." Indeed, in several cases, they seem incompatable with each other.


2. You didn't show how ANY of those other verses apply uniquely to either the current, institutional OFFICE of the RC Denomination of "the papacy" and/or to each and every Bishop of Rome from Peter to Benedict VI - each in turn - and only to that specific series of men. So even if these Scriptures are about the "antichrist(s)" and not the 3 verses (rather than them) that mention such, there was no attempt to show how either that OFFICE or each of those men in series specifically and uniquely meet all the criteria of all the verses presented.


I'm quite amazed, as a new young Lutheran, how almost everything I was taught about doctrine, epistemology, etc. and is SO very evidence elsewhere seems to be contradicted by this one. It does seem troubling to me.

I can't help you.

Sorry. I've TRIED to make it as easy as possible.


We all agree there are 3 Holy Scriptures that speak DIRECTLY and clearly to the issue. I was taught to start with the clear and specific. I was taught that views must be normed by Scripture. Yes - again - IF you would show that either the current, institutional, RC Denominational OFFICE of the Papacy and/or each of the Bishops of Rome - Peter through Benedict VI each in turn and in series - specifically meet the various God stated criteria in the 3 Scriptures that specifically speak of the "anti-christ(s)" THEN we could move on to the Holy Scriptures that are implicit, what you regard as ALSO applying (thus adding to the list of criteria that must be met - specifically and uniquely by that specific OFFICE or to each and all Bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI). But, from my perspective, the specific Holy Scriptures on this have been entirely ignored. And the ones substituted (which don't mention it) have not been shown, as a group, to apply specifically and solely and uniquely to either the current, institutional RC Denomination OFFICE of the Papacy (in fact, it seems to ME it fits NONE of the Scriptures offered - even by the interpretation offered) and no attempt even was made to show that they specifically and uniquely apply to each and every Bishop of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI, each in series.


I'm not debating the issue or being argumentative. I've just doing what Lutherans do in regards to Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, etc. and EXACTLY as we do with all the Lutheran distinctives and as I have been taught. From my perspective, all that seems reversed when it comes to this one. I don't know why. It's surprising but above all troubling to me. It seems so fundamentally unlutheran to me.





Thank you anyway. I appreciate your time and respect VERY much!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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."


.

The Scriptures explain it adequately.

Then help me see that, Pastor. These are the 3 Scriptures (and the only 3) that speak directly to the issue. Here (and only here) GOD Himself uses that term and speaks directly to that issue. Here (and only here) GOD Himself lays out the clear criteria for that title. In His Holy Word. Let's begin by showing me that the various criteria that God gives us in His Holy Word (I count 6-7) apply specifically and exclusively to either the current, institutional, RC Denomination's OFFICE of the Papacy and/or specifically and exclusively to each in turn and series to the Bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI.


Since some call either the institutional OFFICE of the RC Denomination OR each of the Bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI, as "the antichrist" doesn't it matter what GOD Himself specifically and clearly and directly says is the "antichrist" in the 3 Scriptures where GOD specifically, directly and clearly speaks of such in His Holy Word? They are, after all, using GOD'S term for something GOD quite specifically speaks of and defines in the 3 Scriptures given.



Thanks!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[DaRev]

Then help me see that, Pastor. These are the 3 Scriptures (and the only 3) that speak directly to the issue. Here (and only here) GOD Himself uses that term and speaks directly to that issue. Here (and only here) GOD Himself lays out the clear criteria for that title. In His Holy Word. Let's begin by showing me that the various criteria that God gives us in His Holy Word (I count 6-7) apply specifically and exclusively to either the current, institutional, RC Denomination's OFFICE of the Papacy and/or specifically and exclusively to each in turn and series to the Bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI.


Since some call either the institutional OFFICE of the RC Denomination OR each of the Bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI, as "the antichrist" doesn't it matter what GOD Himself specifically and clearly and directly says is the "antichrist" in the 3 Scriptures where GOD specifically, directly and clearly speaks of such in His Holy Word? They are, after all, using GOD'S term for something GOD quite specifically speaks of and defines in the 3 Scriptures given.



Thanks!


Pax


- Josiah






.

Using your logic, we must then throw out the doctrine of the Trinity since there is no specific mention of it in the Bible. We must also throw out infant baptism since there are no words "batize infants" in the Bible. But we don't limit Scripture or God that way. You want to limit the discussion to only a portion of what the Scriptures actually say about the issue, only because the word 'antichrist' appears 4 times. That's not how it works. How does the antichrist apply to the Papacy? We've told you. We've shown you. It's quite clear. The Bible speaks of the antichrist in more places than the 3 verses that have the word in it, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Until you do, you'll never understand it.

You have been directed to read the Confessions, specifically the Treatise, numerous times, but you refuse to read it. It explains much clearer than can I as to how the Biblical teaching of the antichrist applies to the Papacy. You have been given the resources to answer your question. You refuse to use them. We can do no more for you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, if you desire and if you would, please do one or both of the following:


1. For the specific, current, institutional, OFFICE of the RC Denomination known as "the papacy," please show that IT - and IT alone (as "THE antichrist") meet all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below).


2. For every Bishop of Rome, Peter to and through the current Pope (since I don't know how you would do this for all future bishops of Rome), show that all of them, in series, each one but one at a given time, meets all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below)


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."




Thank you! Blessings!



Pax




-Josiah

Using your logic, we must then throw out the doctrine of the Trinity since there is no specific mention of it in the Bible.

Dear Pastor,

IMO, it's apples and oranges.

There IS specific mention of "antichrist." By God. Specifically. GOD Himself speaks specifically and particularly of that - by that very term - in His Holy Word. AND He Himself - specifically and particularly and clearly - gives the criteria for us also in His Holy Word as for what such is, by what such can be determined.

You want to limit the discussion to only a portion of what the Scriptures actually say about the issue, only because the word 'antichrist' appears 4 times.

I never remotely so stated, what I specifically stated is that of course you may ADD to the specific criteria GOD Himself gives in His Holy Word in the 4 Scriptures where He Himself specifically and by name speaks to such. One of the points where we seem to disagree (with mutual respect, I'm sure) is that we may ignore the 4 verses where God specifically and directly and by name speaks of such and where God Himself gives the criteria in His Holy Word by substituting verses that don't mention it. I disagree. FIRST deal with the clear, the direct. THEN, if you feel other Scriptures are clearly about this identical issue, you may ADD those criteria. But I don't see where you clearly indicated that either the current, particular, institutional, RC OFFICE of the "papacy" meets all the criteria God Himself specifically gives for such, by name, directly, clearly, in His Holy Word for what God Himself directly says is specifically "anti-christ" OR that every Bishop of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI - each and every, in turn, is specifically what God Himself defines directly as "antichrist." Much less met all those criteria and now want to extensively ADD to the list of criteria and show that either the OFFICE or all Bishops of Rome, each in turn, Peter - Benedict, are, by God's criteria in His Holy Word specific to "anti-Christ."

but you refuse to read it.

Sir, I've VERY carefully read EVERYTHING you (and all others) have placed into this thread.

What I've not seen is how the specific, particular, exclusive, institutional, RC Denomination's OFFICE of Papacy clearly matches all the criteria GOD Himself specifically gives to what He Himself names "antichrist" and/or that every Bishop of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI each in turn, so does. In fact, no attempt has been made to do so that (which strikes me as amazing and disappointing, quite unlutheran, and, well... troubling).








.

 

[DaRev]

I never remotely so stated, what I specifically stated is that of course you may ADD to the specific criteria GOD Himself gives in His Holy Word in the 4 Scriptures where He Himself specifically and by name speaks to such. One of the points where we seem to disagree (with mutual respect, I'm sure) is that we may ignore the 4 verses where God specifically and directly and by name speaks of such and where God Himself gives the criteria in His Holy Word by substituting verses that don't mention it. I disagree. FIRST deal with the clear, the direct. THEN, if you feel other Scriptures are clearly about this identical issue, you may ADD those criteria. But I don't see where you clearly indicated that either the current, particular, institutional, RC OFFICE of the "papacy" meets all the criteria God Himself specifically gives for such, by name, directly, clearly, in His Holy Word for what God Himself directly says is specifically "anti-christ" OR that every Bishop of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI - each and every, in turn, is specifically what God Himself defines directly as "antichrist." Much less met all those criteria and now want to extensively ADD to the list of criteria and show that either the OFFICE or all Bishops of Rome, each in turn, Peter - Benedict, are, by God's criteria in His Holy Word specific to "anti-Christ."

No one is ADDING anything to anything. It's all or nothing. You are ignoring other places in Scripture where the subject is defined. Don't limit the word of God that way. You're using the logic that these are the only verses that speak of it at all. That is not true. There are others that speak of it even though the specific word is not used. No one is adding anything. You are subtracting.

If you have read the Treatise then you know what the other parts of Scripture are and what they say. Don't ignore them. Don't subtract them from the equation. You'll never get the true answer by doing so.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, if you desire and if you would, please do one or both of the following:


1. For the specific, current, institutional, OFFICE of the RC Denomination known as "the papacy," please show that IT - and IT alone (as "THE antichrist") meet all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below).


2. For every Bishop of Rome, Peter to and through the current Pope (since I don't know how you would do this for all future bishops of Rome), show that all of them, in series, each one but one at a given time, meets all the criteria of the Holy Scriptures on that (see below)


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."




Thank you! Blessings!



Pax




-Josiah

No one is ADDING anything to anything. It's all or nothing. You are ignoring other places in Scripture where the subject is defined. Don't limit the word of God that way.

I think we disagree with that rubric....


But AGAIN, I never said you may not bring other Scriptures to the discussion, Scriptures where God does not mention "antichrist." But ONE of the (respectful) disagreements we have is that you my SUBSTITUTE those for the clear, specific ones where God Himself in His Holy Word specifically, particularly, by name, speaks of this and gives HIS criteria.


To advance, let's try this, Pastor...


1. Go through the following Holy Scriptures and draw from them every criteria that GOD Himself states for "antichrist" (by name):

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."


Here's what God is stating, from my perspective:

The antichrist(s) meets these criteria, according to God in His Holy Word:

A. There were many when First John was written (perhaps in the 90's)

B. They "came out" from the Apostles (or perhaps "us" means Christians).

C. Denies that Jesus is the Christ.

D. Denies the Father and Son (as God?).

E. Do not confess that Christ will return in the flesh.


Now, if you will:


Reveal for us specifically HOW the current, specific, particular, institutional, OFFICE in the RC Denomination- and IT alone - meets A-E. GOD'S specific criteria for what GOD here, in His Holy Word, labels "antichrist."

From my perspective, I don't think the Papacy has its roots in the Apostles (only the RCC believes that), I don't think it existed in the AD 90's, I don't think there were "many" offices of the Papacy in the 90's AD, I don't think it's even theoretically POSSIBLE for an institutional OFFICE (in any denomination) to deny anything or to not confess anything - faith (or the lack thereof) is something only humans can do. So, if you are going to say the OFFICE of the RC Papacy is "the antichrist" (a topic God Himself specifically speaks of in 4 Scriptures), you need to document that that specific OFFICE as it is currently is constituted in the RC Denomination meets A-E. And ONLY that OFFICE of that Denomination.

OR, if you want to say it's not the OFFICE but those in it, then document A-E for the Bishops in Rome, Peter (or whoever you regard as the first Bishop of Rome) through Benedict VI, each in turn, and how each of them clearly meets A-E that God Himself as stated as criteria for such in His Holy Word. And ONLY those men - each in turn.

From MY perspective, I think you're going to have some difficulty proving that all 266 Bishops of Rome, Peter - Benedict Vi - all of them but only them, meet the 5 criteria God Himself gives for us in His Holy Word.



2. Once # 1 has been established, you CERTAINLY may add WHATEVER verses you also think are relevant - although it is not obvious such applies since God did not so clearly designate. As I've stated several times now, that seems valid. But then, show that whatever verses you present - regarding the "antichrist" - and then ADD those criteria to the list. ADD your "F - whatever" to the A - E. And show how either the current, particular, specific, institutional, RC Denomination's OFFICE of the Papacy meets A - whatever you come up with, uniquely. OR that A - whatever meets every Bishop of Rome, Peter - Benedict VI, and only those 266 persons.




Thank you!


Blessings!


- Josiah






.

 

[Moses Medina]

I just spent an hour reading this entire thread. ... that is all. :-(

 

[truefiction1]

Me too. ...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I just spent an hour reading this entire thread. ... that is all. :-(

Me too. ...

Care to share your thoughts?

 

[Moses Medina]

Not really much to say as it was pounded to the ground over and over here, reading through all the topics on this forum has been very educational for me though is really much all I got.

 

[DaRev]

Not really much to say as it was pounded to the ground over and over here, reading through all the topics on this forum has been very educational for me though is really much all I got.

But it is Confessional.

 

[Moses Medina]

But it is Confessional.

Yes, I read it I believe in the Augsburg Confessions, correct me if I'm wrong Rev. Also I have been reading scripture along with everything and so far I have agree with every confession made.

 

[Basil the Great]

Rev - Considering that Christ prayed for his followers to be one and reflecting upon the fact that we are living in the age of Ecumenism, might it not be a good idea for the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod to at the very least delete any specific reference to this matter in their denominational positions?