Catholicism not Christian?

[Timonator348]

I still don’t understand this at all. Catholics are not only Christians but we’re the original Christians! We become Christian through baptism as we are baptized into the body of Christ. We honor the fact that Protestants who received a valid baptism are Christians but they, after splitting away from the Catholic Church, cannot afford us the same respect? I’m getting better at talking to our Protestant brothers with patience and kindness to the best of my ability even when I feel they are spouting pure heresy from a heart filled with anti-Catholic bias brought on by generational brainwashing (not anyone on this thread, just people I know in person) A lot of Protestant churches still have as their official position that the Pope is the Antichrist which approaching_arm says:

There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support

although he does not provide a single verse.

I think the what constantly comes up in my mind regarding this topic is the parable of the weeds amongst the wheat and the sower who’s seeds feel amongst thorns, on rocky ground, on good soil, etc. Jesus founded One Church. He prayed that we would all be perfectly one as He and the Father are One with a visible unity that the world may see so they may know that the Father had truly sent Him. The seeds are the word of God which Jesus points out people will receive with varying degrees and will perceiver to varying degrees as some will be snatched up immediately by the Devil, some choked out by the cares of the world, some will grow for a short time but be burnt up because they have no root and some will grow to fullness because the Word is sewn in the good soil of their soul (sound like any Christians you know?) The parable of the weeds amongst the wheat teaches us there will be sinners in the Church but they are not pulled out now because they do not affect the holiness of the Church, the bride and body of Christ. The weeds, who are sewn by the Devil, will be gathered up by the angels at the end of time and burned. I thought these points were good food for thought

-Tim

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Timonator,

I am a Protestant who is also an adjunct faculty member at a Roman Catholic graduate school of theology. (I teach Aquinas’s philosophy to Dominicans.) So I’m in a unique position to answer your question.

There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support, and I just published a book in which I explain and defend the claim. (If you’re interested, it is entitled Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution. You’d be especially interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5.) Either way, historical Protestants believed that the Catholic Church is and was a real Christian church, but they also believed that it was a sin to be a member of this church due to its backsliding from the truth. It seems that later Protestants were unable to understand how the pope could be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church could be a real church.

I agree with the classical Protestant position. The pope is the Antichrist and we shouldn’t be members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is a Christian church with a valid baptism.

–Dan

I’ve heard that Scott Hahn held to the same position before his conversion to the Catholic faith. It is an old tradition, but hardly one I would call “venerable” unless you mean only that it’s a prejudice that has endured through the years.

Peace,
Robert

 

[approaching_arm]

I didn’t include a verse in support of the papal Antichrist theory for two reasons.

1. First, I didn’t include a verse in support of this theory because that isn’t the point of this thread. If you would like to discuss this in a separate thread, I’d be glad to participate as I have time. I was offering an explanation of why some Protestants don’t consider Catholics Christians.
2. Second, I didn’t include a verse in support of the claim because I cited a book that includes four chapters in which I offer a lengthy, Scripture-based defense of the claim. Once you write a book on a topic, you just don’t feel like writing the same thing over and over again. Read the book. I guarantee you couldn’t answer the arguments–guaranteed. I mentioned the three most important of these chapters in my first post on this thread. They include chapters 3, 4 and 5, and they discuss, respectively, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Daniel 7. In chapter 6, I explain certain parts of Revelation 17 and 18, too, and apply certain passages to the Catholic Church.

As for Protestants being heretics: I basically claim the same thing in chapter 6 of my book. Contemporary Protestantism is largely heretical and its current state dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ. But all of this is beside the point. You wanted to know why some Protestants think the Catholic church is no church, and I think I offered a partial explanation.

Cheers,
Dan

 

[PJM]

=Timonator348;7778277]Can someone please explain where this idea came from? Also if any Protestants out there can enlighten me to the scriptural support for this belief I would appreciate it, thank you and God bless!

I’m responding because I’d like to know this too. The REAL question is why christians are NOT Catholics?

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2: 18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. “

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ajcstr]

I still don’t understand this at all. Catholics are not only Christians but we’re the original Christians! We become Christian through baptism as we are baptized into the body of Christ. We honor the fact that Protestants who received a valid baptism are Christians but they, after splitting away from the Catholic Church, cannot afford us the same respect? I’m getting better at talking to our Protestant brothers with patience and kindness to the best of my ability even when I feel they are spouting pure heresy from a heart filled with anti-Catholic bias brought on by generational brainwashing (not anyone on this thread, just people I know in person) A lot of Protestant churches still have as their official position that the Pope is the Antichrist which approaching_arm says: although he does not provide a single verse.
-Tim

Tim, the only thing I can tell you is, after attending a Protestant bible study on Romans, Is that the PERCEPTION is that Catholics believe in a gospel of works. By doing so, we nullify the “true” gospel message by putting faith in ourselves and not in Christ. We hold the Saints and Mary as gods when there is only one mediator between God and Man. Now in this Bible study group, nobody went so far as to say I was not Christian, but this was a Anglican Church although not a High Church. This really opened my eyes and the leader made it a point to explain where the Catholic Church “got it wrong” whenever possible. When you get into many of the Baptist, Pentecostal denominations they are just under the impression that Catholics are going to Hell. In many of these denominations the alter call is probably more important than Baptism. Another view is that the Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine. That’s when all the true Christians went underground in hiding so they would deny that the Catholic Church was started by Christ. Then of course are those who believe the Catholic Church WAS the true Church until it went into apostasy. So using the “original Christian” argument won’t get you anywhere.

For the past year, I have really been trying to get under the hood of why Catholics are considered this way. Used to really bother me, but it doesn’t any more. I know I grew up in a very Catholic neighborhood, went to Catholic elementary, high school and college and I would have to say I had a very warped perception of what a Protestant was, so I could imagine it going the other way. The only thing we can do is defend when we can. In this Bible class I would pretty much sit and listen but when I thought the Catholic position was misrepresented I spoke up. Not from the point of trying to get them to agree with me, but at least to do away with misconceptions they had. Oddly enough there were a couple of people in there that disagreed with each other pretty strongly, mainly about whether or not salvation can be lost, so I got to hear more than one opinion. It’s really like another culture.

If you get EWTN, I would highly suggest you watch “The Journey Home” program. It is on weekly in several time slots and the host, Marcus Grodi talks with a different Catholic convert each week. It is very interesting to hear what they believed about the Catholic Church before and what changed their opinions. You can go to the EWTN site and find the Journey Home page and listen to current episodes there. Also here is a GREAT link with tons of free mp3 files u can listen to on the computer or download and listen on an mp3 player. If you have an hour, listen to the debate between the Mark Bonocore and Matt Slick (who believes Catholics are not Christian and tells Mark he was going to Hell).

philvaz.com/apologetics/audio.htm

I’ll leave you with:
probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4222677/k.B72F/What_Are_the_Differences_Between_Catholics_and_Christians.htm

 

[Ranp]

Can someone please explain where this idea came from? Also if any Protestants out there can enlighten me to the scriptural support for this belief I would appreciate it, thank you and God bless!

Tim

There is absolutely no scriptural support for their belief. To support this belief Protestants usually take scriptural passages out of context. In reality it is nothing more than an attempt to justify why they are not part of the one and only church created directly by the hand of Jesus Christ. I am a Christian because I choose my by free will to acknowledge, believe in, worship, and love God and his son Jesus Christ and to belong to His holy Catholic Chruch, and by having the most personal relationship possible with Him by receiving Him in the Holy Eucharist during mass just as He clearly instructed us to do in the Bible. That I am Christian does not depend in any way upon what other people think. Personally I view our Protestant brothers and sisters as Christian and I don’t lose sleep if any of them don’t return the favor. Love your fellow humans with all your heart and without expecting it back.

Ran Pleasant

 

[PJM]

=approaching_arm;7784023]Hi Timonator,

I am a Protestant who is also an adjunct faculty member at a Roman Catholic graduate school of theology. (I teach Aquinas’s philosophy to Dominicans.) So I’m in a unique position to answer your question.

There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support, and I just published a book in which I explain and defend the claim. (If you’re interested, it is entitled Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution. You’d be especially interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5.) Either way, historical Protestants believed that the Catholic Church is and was a real Christian church, but they also believed that it was a sin to be a member of this church due to its backsliding from the truth. It seems that later Protestants were unable to understand how the pope could be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church could be a real church.

I agree with the classical Protestant position. The pope is the Antichrist and we shouldn’t be members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is a Christian church with a valid baptism.

–Dan

Hi Dan,

I’d like to better understand your position of the Pope being Anti Christ. What are some of the biblical foundations for such a strange claim?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[approaching_arm]

Hi Dan,

I’d like to better understand your position of the Pope being Anti Christ. What are some of the biblical foundations for such a strange claim?

God Bless,
Pat

Hi Pat,

Apprently my post is way too long. I’ll divide it into three parts.

The case for the papal Antichrist theory is an accumulative case, and that’s why I’ve written about it in my book. I’d be happy to give you a super-abbreviated explanation of the position, but I’ll admit my reservations about this: in offering an abbreviated explanation of the position, I’m afraid that I won’t do it justice. Either way, here goes:

There are a handful of passages in the Old and New Testaments that people almost universally think apply to the traditional “Antichrist” figure. Two of the most noteworthy and descriptive passages are Daniel 7 (the “little horn”) and Second Thessalonians 2 (the “man of sin”). Now, I should note at the outset that there is a wide-ranging consensus that these passages are about the *traditional *Antichrist figure. They do not necessarily refer to the “antichrists” spoken of in John’s epistles, where the apostle appears to be referring to early Gnostics. The idea, here, is that these passages refer to that guy that so many people are afraid of in the latter days.

Either way, as you’ll see, the description of the Antichrist in these passages is surprisingly comprehensive, and it is the comprehensiveness that makes the case in favor of the papal antichrist theory so compelling. Here’s what I mean.

Daniel, of course, saw several important visions. One of these is recorded in Daniel 7, where Daniel sees four beasts (‘kings’ or empires—Dan. 7:17). Interpreters of all stripes understand these beasts to represent four consecutive world empires that began with the Babylonian Empire (the first beast) and ended with the Roman Empire (the fourth beast). For our purposes, we only need to be concerned with the fourth beast.

Daniel tells us that this fourth beast has ten horns, and these horns represent temporal ‘kings’ or kingdoms (Dan. 7:24) that come up out of the Roman Empire. The Apostle John tells us that these kings hadn’t yet received their kingdoms during his own lifetime (when the Roman Empire was still unified), but he said that they would receive their kingdoms later (Rev. 17:12). The idea, here, is fairly simple: the ten horns represent a large number of temporal kingdoms that arise out of the fallen Roman Empire. (I offer a comprehensive explanation for this in Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution.)

Interestingly, at some point after the ten horns had already emerged on the back of the Roman beast, an eleventh “little horn” emerges, and Daniel gives us a couple descriptions of him. In v. 8, he describes the little horn as he appeared to Daniel in the vision:

(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)

 

[approaching_arm]

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:8)

In vv. 24-25, Daniel records the angel’s explanation of the vision of the little horn:

“And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. (25) And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (Daniel 7:24-25)

Without getting into the details, here, this gives us a preliminary (although fairly comprehensive) list of traits that apply to the Antichrist. He is:

1. A temporal king over a small kingdom (i.e., a ‘little horn’)
2. He rose to temporal power through conquering three kingdoms (i.e., he ‘plucked up three horns,’ or: he ‘subdued three kings.’)
3. He shall persecute God’s people (‘wear out the saints of the most High’)
4. He shall be a legislator, and he shall be responsible for using his authority to make changes in ‘times. (‘he shall… think to change times and laws.’)
5. He shall speak make very bold claims that challenge the authority of God (the little horn has ‘a mouth speaking great things,’ which the angel tells us are ‘great words against the most High.’)
6. He shall reign for ‘a time and times and the dividing of time.’ (I don’t have enough time to explain this in this thread, so I’ll bracket it. I thoroughly explain it in the book.)

So here are several very concrete claims about the Antichrist. He is a ruler over a small temporal kingdom that was a Johnny-come-lately among kingdoms that arose out of the fallen Roman Empire. When he rose to power, he did so through the subjugation of three other kingdoms that existed before his kingdom. He would have noteworthy legislative powers, and through his authority he would bring about changes in ‘times.’ He would be responsible for the persecution of God’s people, etc.

Now, before I apply this to the pope, we need to expand the description of the traditional Antichrist character by looking at Second Thessalonians 2. Here’s the relevant passage:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (5) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (6) And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. (7) For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (9) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, (10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10)

Now, I’m going to make quick work of this passage, but I wish I didn’t have to. I only have so much time. Here it goes:

In this passage, Paul tells us that

1. The Antichrist will hold an exalted, God-like authority in “the temple of God.”

Note: The temple of God in the New Testament is the church (see Ephesians 2:17-22). Hence, St. Chrysostom makes the following observation about this passage:

“[the Antichrist] will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church.” (from Homily III of Chrysostom’s homilies on 2 Thessalonians)

1. He shall be a part of a falling away from the historic faith. (‘for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.’)
2. The errors that prop him up were ancient errors that were already present in the apostolic era (‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work.’)
3. He will exploit miracle claims in order to deceive and attract followers (‘Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.’)

(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)

 

[approaching_arm]

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

So, here (see previous post) is a list of 10 features of the Antichrist. He is both the head of a temporal kingdom and the church, etc. So, how does the pope fair when compared to this list? He’s a perfect match. Here’s a quick summary of how he matches.

1. Is he a temporal king over a small kingdom? Check. His first papal states were acquired in A.D. 756.
2. Did he rise to temporal power by subduing three kingdoms? Check. With the aid of the Frankish king, Pipen the Great, Pope Stephen II acquired the autonomous states, the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Duchy of the Pentapolis and the Duchy of Perugia in roughly A.D. 756. (Note, the history of this period is more complex than I can get into in a single bullet point. I have a whole chapter and appendix on it in the book.)
3. Does he have a history of persecuting God’s people? Check, supposing Protestants, Waldensians, etc., qualify as God’s people.
4. Is the pope a legislator who also changed ‘times’? Check. The pope is a legislator (see canon law and the centrality of the decretals of the popes) and the pope has overseen the institution of many changes in the church calendar and the internationally accepted calendar now in use throughout the world is the Gregorian Calendar (originally enforced by a papal bull).
5. Does he speak great things against God? Check, supposing it is a great thing to claim God’s prerogatives in the church. In fact, Pope Gregory the Great himself observed that it was the mark of Antichrist to call oneself the head of the whole church (he used the expressions “the universal priest” and “the sole priest” to mean the “primary” or “highest” priest in the world). He wrote the following in Epistle XXXIII to Mauricius Augustus:

“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.”

1. Does he reign for a time and times and a dividing of a time? Check, but it takes too long to explain here. The book gives the details. Suffice it to say that this period of time represents 1,260 years, and Ezekiel’s principle of interpreting a prophetic ‘day’ as a year figures importantly into this claim. See Ezekiel 4:6: “I have appointed thee each day for a year.”
2. Does the pope rule over the church, the ‘temple of God’? Check. And nobody else comes close to being a real candidate for this position.
3. Is the pope involved in a falling away from the faith? Check. There’s lots of evidence of this, but I’m rushing. For now, let it be sufficient that Paul identifies the following as demonic doctrines that will accompany the falling away of the faithful: “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from [foods]”—that is, mandatory celibacy and mandatory fasts are demonic doctrines that mark the apostasy. Here’s the whole passage:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

1. Are the errors that prop up the pope so ancient that they would have been identifiable in the apostolic period? Check. In fact, the Catholic Church boasts of its antiquity as though that should make everybody scared to be outside the of it. Paul, however, tells us that the Antichrist will be propped up by ancient errors. Note: the pope is the only guy who is both a temporal king and head of the universal church who is also propped up by ancient teachings. It is very hard to escape what appears to be the obvious conclusion.
2. Does the pope have a history of exploiting miracle claims in order to gain followers? Check. In addition to endorsing all sorts of miracles throughout history and sometimes performing his own extraordinary ones, transubstantiation is a ‘miracle’ that is regularly performed and is marketed as one of the most important reasons why everyone should join the Roman Catholic Church.

In addition to all of this, in Revelation 17, we see that the Antichrist character is on the city of seven hills—Rome. Revelation 17:9: “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” A full explanation of this requires more effort than I can give. This is a long post as it is. If you have questions, I’ll see if I can get back to you. We’re nearing the end of the semester, so I’m busy.

Kind Regards,
Dan

 

[Timonator348]

Wow kind of got off on a tangent there about the pope being the anti christ. Obviously you studied greatly on this matter and are intelligent enough to express it in writing. What shocks me is how badly things are taken out of context how many times you use the word “supposing”. Example:

1. Does he have a history of persecuting God’s people? Check, supposing Protestants, Waldensians, etc., qualify as God’s people.

I thought God’s people were the Jews and now Christians?

Another common mistake I noticed is taking Rome to be the city on 7 hills. These messages are also used to refer to the Catholic Church as the “w**** of babylon”. Unfortunately this is actually making reference to Jerusalem and their relationship with PAGAN Rome. I’ve also never known of any pope who has declared himself (or shewn himself) to be God or to speak great words AGAINST God. Also I have never heard any pope referred to as “highest priest” as he is a bishop and other titles include Vicar of Christ, holy father and pope (which means father). I’m sorry, but it seems to me you are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” 2 Timothy 3:7

 

[ajcstr]

With all due respect

Let’s not forget, Jesus was believed to be Satan by many. Can we expect any less for the Pope? You can connect the “dots” in the Bible many different ways, but only one way will give you a correct picture.

I believe from several billboards that I see in Philadelphia, the rapture will take place on 5/21 and the 2nd coming in October. However, the same Harold Camping first connected the dots and THAT picture told him that 9/1994 was the date, so he had to do some erasing and reconnecting.

 

[ajcstr]

PS - when I say “I believe”, don’t take me literally !

 

[approaching_arm]

Wow kind of got off on a tangent there about the pope being the anti christ. Obviously you studied greatly on this matter and are intelligent enough to express it in writing. What shocks me is how badly things are taken out of context how many times you use the word “supposing”. Example: I thought God’s people were the Jews and now Christians?

Another common mistake I noticed is taking Rome to be the city on 7 hills. These messages are also used to refer to the Catholic Church as the “w**** of babylon”. Unfortunately this is actually making reference to Jerusalem and their relationship with PAGAN Rome. I’ve also never known of any pope who has declared himself (or shewn himself) to be God or to speak great words AGAINST God. Also I have never heard any pope referred to as “highest priest” as he is a bishop and other titles include Vicar of Christ, holy father and pope (which means father). I’m sorry, but it seems to me you are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” 2 Timothy 3:7

Hi Timonator,

I basically expected your response, but I thought that I would wait to deal with it: the problem, here, is that we disagree from the outset about what true Christianity is. Accordingly, there may be some disagreement about what it means to speak words “against” God, and what it is to be among “God’s people,” etc. Since adjudicating these matters would take us even further off topic, I won’t bother getting into it.

That said, I will say this, though: the Antichrist is clearly taught to be a man who rules over a temporal kingdom (a ‘horn’) and the church (‘the temple of God’) who is propped up by ancient errors (the ‘mystery of iniquity’ was already at work in Paul’s day). Furthermore, he gained temporal power by subduing three kingdoms that arose out of the fallen Roman Empire (‘plucking up three horns’). I want you to tell me this: who else meets these criteria besides the pope? And you better not be thinking of somebody who will come in the future–Paul disallows that, it seems, in 2 Thessalonians when he says that the mystery of the Antichrist’s inquity was already present at that time and that it was only a matter of time before it was revealed. It’s been roughly 2,000 years since that was written, so you’d be hard-pressed to make sense of the passage by some future guy who will be head of the universal church and a small political state!

As for the whore of Babylon: no knock to you personally, but the interpretation you offered isn’t very impressive. First, the city of seven hills is the city of seven hills, and the Apostle John knew full well that he was referring to Rome when he used the expression. He couldn’t have thought otherwise–this was a familiar, ancient expression. Second, Babylon is the city of Rome. Catholics often urge this when try to offer Biblical support for their claim that Peter lived in Rome. After all, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter indicates that he was in the church at “Babylon,” which Catholic interpreters typically take to be the city of Rome. I could go on, but I really don’t have time to explain all of Revelation 17-18… I think I’ve said enough for now, anyway.

As for the pope never speaking great things AGAINST God? Even Catholics agree that the popes often spoke great things against God… they just don’t believe those utterances were ex cathedra and authoritative. As Catholics often tell me, although the popes never made any official errors, it doesn’t follow from this that they don’t have a long history of being real jerks, arrogant men, or even outright tyrants at times. Any historian can show this. Furthermore, if this isn’t speaking a great thing against God, then I don’t know what is:

“We [popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” --(PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE. THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM, Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, June 20, 1894)

That’s in a papal encyclical.

One last thing: Gregory the Great was not disputing with anyone about being the only priest on earth. He was disputing with someone about being a universal bishop. When trying to understand someone’s claims, it is important to understand the historical context in which the claims were being made.

Cheers,
Dan

 

[ESMDHokie77]

As for the whore of Babylon: no knock to you personally, but the interpretation you offered isn’t very impressive. First, the city of seven hills is the city of seven hills, and the Apostle John knew full well that he was referring to Rome when he used the expression. He couldn’t have thought otherwise–this was a familiar, ancient expression. Second, Babylon is the city of Rome. Catholics often urge this when try to offer Biblical support for their claim that Peter lived in Rome. After all, in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter indicates that he was in the church at “Babylon,” which Catholic interpreters typically take to be the city of Rome. I could go on, but I really don’t have time to explain all of Revelation 17-18… I think I’ve said enough for now, anyway.

Ancient (Pagan) Rome did inhabit 7 hills east of the Tiber River. Vatican City sits on Vatican Hill, west of the Tiber River. Modern Rome inhabits more than the 7 of ancient Rome. The whore of Babylon is NOT the the Catholic Church, and the Pope is NOT the Antichrist.

 

[Timonator348]

Ok I will be working on a response Dan. I think you missed the part where we actually agree. Babylon is Rome, but pagan Rome. The Roman Church is actually centered in Vatican City which is outside Rome (or the old city of Rome / Babylon).

 

[approaching_arm]

Ancient (Pagan) Rome did inhabit 7 hills east of the Tiber River. Vatican City sits on Vatican Hill, west of the Tiber River. Modern Rome inhabits more than the 7 of ancient Rome. The whore of Babylon is NOT the the Catholic Church, and the Pope is NOT the Antichrist.

You can’t really believe that this argument is helpful. Did the ancient residents of Rome–the ones who lived between the seven hills in the “valleys”–live “on the seven hills” in ancient (Pagan) Rome? Strictly speaking, no. But if they said that they lived in the city of seven hills, everyone would have known what they were talking about. When John mentions the city of seven hills, he isn’t restricting it to land immediately atop of the seven hills, or even to land in the immediate vicinity. He is obviously referring to the city that goes by that name, and that was all of Rome–whether on the hills or anywhere else that constituted the city of Rome.

Rome *is *the city of seven hills–including those parts of Rome that aren’t immediately atop one of the seven hills. The pope is the head of a temporal state and a church, and–both historically and presently–he has ruled and rules his subjects from the city of seven hills. At least you have to admit this: the position isn’t idiotic or unmotivated. Its not like we’re labeling Gorbachev the Antichrist because his birthmark is on his forehead, right?

Regards,
Dan

 

[approaching_arm]

Ok I will be working on a response Dan. I think you missed the part where we actually agree. Babylon is Rome, but pagan Rome. The Roman Church is actually centered in Vatican City which is outside Rome (or the old city of Rome / Babylon).

I look forward to your response, and I also apologize for not seeing where we actually agree. I’ll try to be more careful going forward.

That said, if you intend to discuss the “whore of Babylon” passage in your reply, though, I would like to know this:

Scripture often portrays the church as a woman (e.g., the bride of Christ; the end of the age shall involve a wedding feast, etc.). Also, when God’s people turn away from him, they are collectively charged with being a “whorish” woman (the story of Hosea’s life is to the point, here). It would be uncharacteristic symbolically to call a pagan or heathen community a “whore” insofar as it is inappropriate to use the woman symbol / metaphor for such a community. So, here’s my question: why would Pagan Rome be called a whore?

–Dan

 

[PJM]

=approaching_arm;7787718]Hi Pat,

Apprently my post is way too long. I’ll divide it into three parts.

The case for the papal Antichrist theory is an accumulative case, and that’s why I’ve written about it in my book. I’d be happy to give you a super-abbreviated explanation of the position, but I’ll admit my reservations about this: in offering an abbreviated explanation of the position, I’m afraid that I won’t do it justice. Either way, here goes:

There are a handful of passages in the Old and New Testaments that people almost universally think apply to the traditional “Antichrist” figure. Two of the most noteworthy and descriptive passages are Daniel 7 (the “little horn”) and Second Thessalonians 2 (the “man of sin”). Now, I should note at the outset that there is a wide-ranging consensus that these passages are about the *traditional *Antichrist figure. They do not necessarily refer to the “antichrists” spoken of in John’s epistles, where the apostle appears to be referring to early Gnostics. The idea, here, is that these passages refer to that guy that so many people are afraid of in the latter days.

Either way, as you’ll see, the description of the Antichrist in these passages is surprisingly comprehensive, and it is the comprehensiveness that makes the case in favor of the papal antichrist theory so compelling. Here’s what I mean.

Daniel, of course, saw several important visions. One of these is recorded in Daniel 7, where Daniel sees four beasts (‘kings’ or empires—Dan. 7:17). Interpreters of all stripes understand these beasts to represent four consecutive world empires that began with the Babylonian Empire (the first beast) and ended with the Roman Empire (the fourth beast). For our purposes, we only need to be concerned with the fourth beast.

Daniel tells us that this fourth beast has ten horns, and these horns represent temporal ‘kings’ or kingdoms (Dan. 7:24) that come up out of the Roman Empire. The Apostle John tells us that these kings hadn’t yet received their kingdoms during his own lifetime (when the Roman Empire was still unified), but he said that they would receive their kingdoms later (Rev. 17:12). The idea, here, is fairly simple: the ten horns represent a large number of temporal kingdoms that arise out of the fallen Roman Empire. (I offer a comprehensive explanation for this in Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution.)

Interestingly, at some point after the ten horns had already emerged on the back of the Roman beast, an eleventh “little horn” emerges, and Daniel gives us a couple descriptions of him. In v. 8, he describes the little horn as he appeared to Daniel in the vision:

(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)

God Bless you Dan! I have cut and pasted the three post and added them to my other research materials.

It’s dense material and I wish to give you and it their due. So gice me a few days to read, digest, pray and respond to your much appreciated efforts.

THANKS Pat

 

[Timonator348]

Dan,

From what I understand the “whore” is not pagan Rome but she is the authorities of Jerusalem who rejected Christ and had become embroiled with pagan Babylon. My understanding of Revelation 7 was it was recounting the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and explaining it from God’s perspective. I think too much the Bible is used to try and predict the future but it is also my understanding that most of the new Testament is revealing the Old as Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. The authors also reference the Gospels and things occurring in present times
One example is the “son of perdition” in 2 Thessalonians is the exact phrase Jesus uses for Judas Iscariot.