I’m not a Lutheran but I would love to give an answer.
It wasn’t originally a Lutheran teaching. John Wyclif (also spelled Wycliffe) was the one who started that saying. In 1379 he wrote “Concerning the Pope” and it’s where he brings up the notion of the Pope as being the Anti-Christ. (Source cited: The Medieval Record: Sources of Medieval History by Alfred J. Andrea)
The Pope is not the Antichrist. The Lutheran Confessions describe the office (not the person) of the papacy as a manifestation of the spirit of antichrist.
Right. That’s why I wrote “office of the Pope”.
I would never call anyone who confesses the Triune God the anti-Christ. Of course, that pertains to the individual in the office.
The issue, of course, is that’s what it says in the confessions. So, I’ll give you my opinion.
To hold that the person holding the office is anti-Christ is a judgement of his faith. That in itself would be unscriptural, and a sin. By talking about the office, we are talking about the doctrines it holds and represents.
This is a sad thing, that you were raised anti-Catholic. One can have differing opinions without being “anti-Catholic”, as that term implies something more than disagreement.
Correct.
You lost me here. What doctrines does the office of the papacy supposedly have that make it the anti-Christ? How can an “office” be an anti-Christ? An office, like that of presdient or senator or pope is held by a person.
No. The term office in the context of what the Lutheran Confessions are referring to, is the teachings that are associated with the doctrine of the papacy. Papal infallibility, supreme bishop of the church, etc. The LCMS, at least, adds this for clarification “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 could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise. 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.”Right. That’s why I wrote “office of the Pope”.
“…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.”
So the question remains for Lutherans, do you personally believe that Catholics are following the Anti-Christ, which pretty much is the implication, no?
The teachings concerning that office. For example, the office of president is not evil, but the office of a president wherein that office gives him a dictatorial role over the nation and gives him powers to subjugate the populace, kill them etc. (I’m not saying that’s what the Pope does, I’m demonstrating how an office can be evil) would make that office despotic.
The primary passages that the Lutheran reformers referred to were not those from 1 John, but from 2 Thessalonians.
I admit to being a little confused as to the meaning of the Lutheran doctrinal statement in this area:
Technically, following any false doctrine would fit in to the same category, not just the papacy. The reason we would say that Catholics aren’t following the anti Christ is, aside from being overtly polemic, there are true Christians among the Catholic Church. As such, they are following Christ, not anti Christ. Being wrong on doctrine doesn’t mean knowingly following clear error.
That’s where I’m still having trouble. If (any) doctrine is wrong, isn’t it clear error? And thus following it clear error?
No, I don’t think so. Take, for example, the doctrine of Baptism. We hold that to deny baptism to an infant is error, and opposed to the teaching of Christ. In that sense, certainly, the denial of the efficacy of baptism and with holding it from children is anti Christ. Does that mean Baptists knowingly do that? No. They’re just misguided on doctrine.