"We Must Affirm that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ"

[TriuneUnity]

Anyhow, getting into the specifics of 2 Thessalonians 2, the most obvious problem I see with your ideas is in verse 3,

(In the NASB he’s called “man of lawlessness”, in the KJV “man of sin”. I don’t think it makes much difference.) I’ll certainly grant you that description may have jived back in Luther’s day – there were some pretty bad popes. But at this point it’s generally agreed that the popes of the last few centuries have all been holy men. (The last five – J23, P6, JP1, JP2, and B16 – have also been ecumenical-minded, but that’s beside the point.) Maybe that one of the reasons that the “pope is the anti-Christ” rhetoric is so much less popular nowadays.

Do we judge by external works? Or by the doctrine that is taught? If the doctrine being taught by the Pope is against the doctrine of Christ, then regardless of their works or outward piety, then they are teaching sinful doctrines.

Here’s something I agree: with papacy has been around as long as the Church has.

A bishop of Rome is not something I have ever disputed

 

[Ronald_E]

Do we judge by external works? Or by the doctrine that is taught? If the doctrine being taught by the Pope is against the doctrine of Christ, then regardless of their works or outward piety, then they are teaching sinful doctrines.

A bishop of Rome is not something I have ever disputed

How do you judge whether a doctrine taught by the pope is against the doctrine of Christ?

 

[Peter_J]

Do we judge by external works? Or by the doctrine that is taught? If the doctrine being taught by the Pope is against the doctrine of Christ, then regardless of their works or outward piety, then they are teaching sinful doctrines.

So then, Catholics should call Luther “man of sin”? (And, for that matter, Catholics and Lutherans alike should use that phrase for Calvinists, Baptists, etc.?)

 

[TriuneUnity]

So then, Catholics should call Luther “man of sin”? (And, for that matter, Catholics and Lutherans alike should use that phrase for Calvinists, Baptists, etc.?)

As if they don’t? LOL

Do you believe that Luther’s deviation in doctrine is or isn’t sinful according to the doctrines of the Roman Church?

 

[Peter_J]

As if they don’t? LOL

Do you believe that Luther’s deviation in doctrine is or isn’t sinful according to the doctrines of the Roman Church?

I suppose so, technically, if you’ve talking about material sin. But given the reasonableness of his teachings and explanations, I would find it hard to believe that he was committing actual sin by believing what he did. Conscience, and all that.

Also, Unitatis Redintegratio says

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

In any case, I most certainly would not hold Luther up as a pre-eminent example of sin. (Whether some Catholics blog might do so … well, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.)

 

[Peter_J]

To try to get back on track … you were arguing that, whereas Baptist and Calvinists are simply “anti-Christs”, the papacy is in fact “the anti-Christ”. But only one paragraph of your #189 really argues to this end, namely

2 Thessalonians 2:4 he would exalt himself above everything that is called God and worshipped (i.e. everyone who is to be honored as God’s representative in the family, government, and church) and proclaim himself to be God (cf. the papacy’s claim that the Pope speaking officially speaks the word of God) and that everyone must be subject to the Pope to be saved = this Antichrist would set himself up over all of the God-given representatives and insist that salvation could be had only by accepting his authority.

The other paragraphs

2 Thessalonians 2:3 he would be associated with a rebellion (a falling away) and he would be the man of lawlessness - the leader of this sinful falling away. = this Antichrist would lead many people away from Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 this falling away, led by the lawless one (the rebel) would be the work of Satan, marked by conterfeit (i.e. things that deceive people) miracles of various kinds done with Satan’s power to deceive people so that they refuse to believe the truth that salvation was won for us by Christ and refuse to be saved by faith in him alone = this Antichrist would teach a way of salvation which denies that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus.

…

2 Thessalonians 2:7 the secret power of this lawlessness was already at work at Paul’s time (i.e. the denial of salvation by faith in Jesus alone). 2 Thessalonians 2:6 this lawlessness would be held in check by the word of God until he would be revealed (i.e. he would teach his lawlessness openly as indicated in the comments on vv9-10 and v4 above), 2 Thessalonians 2:8b eventually his stranglehold on the family, government, and church would be broken by the breath of Jesus’ mouth (i.e. the truth of the word of God again being openly proclaimed) - 2 Thessalonians 2:8c and he will be completely destroyed at the time when Jesus comes in splendor at the end of the world = this Antichrist was in its early development already at Paul’s time, he would grow in power until he openly taught his own way of salvation, his power would be broken by God’s word being taught openly again, but his rule over his followers would continue until the end of the world (N.B. this antichrist spans the entire history of the NT time)

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 God’s judgment on the followers of this lawless man (who accept what this man teaches about the way of salvation) would be to give them over to a delusion that this man was God’s spokesman, a delusion so powerful that they can’t see the lie of this lawless man and reject the truth that God clearly teaches in his word = the followers of this Antichrist would become so blind that, even when they clearly see the truth of God’s word from the Bible, they don’t believe it but choose to follow his wicked, destructive doctrine instead.

could all be applied just as well to the heretical (or, if you like “sinfully heretical”) Baptists and Calvinists. Agreed?

P.S. The phrase “simply anti-Christs” is pretty incongruous; but you know mean.

 

[TriuneUnity]

To try to get back on track … you were arguing that, whereas Baptist and Calvinists are simply “anti-Christs”, the papacy is in fact “the anti-Christ”. But only one paragraph of your #189 really argues to this end, namely

I think, in general, that would qualify as enough. Granted, I would not emphatically say in an eschatological sense that the papacy will be the anti-Christ in some sort of end times scenario. It would fit Paul’s definition in 2 Thessalonians. Since there is always the hope that the Church will change its errors on the doctrine of the papacy I wouldn’t press the point of the papacy being the anti-Christ.

could all be applied just as well to the heretical (or, if you like “sinfully heretical”) Baptists and Calvinists. Agreed?

To some extent. Inasmuch as Baptists and Calvinists, from our perspective, also teach heterodox doctrines. The issue to most Lutherans in view of Roman teaching will always be justification and the papacy. I think these would be more dangerous than the errors taught by Geneva and the rebaptizers to the faith of Christians. For historical reference, though, it is important to point out that none of the “Lutheran fathers” considered the Zwinglians and proto-Calvinists to be Christian at all, whereas Catholics were.

 

[ralphinal]

Why would justification and the papacy be more dangerous than the removal of the real presance and baptism as a sign only?

 

[Ronald_E]

For clarification and the forward movement of the thread.

From the website of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod:

2 Thessalonians 2:4 he would exalt himself above everything that is called God and worshipped (i.e. everyone who is to be honored as God’s representative in the family, government, and church) and proclaim himself to be God (cf. the papacy’s claim that the Pope speaking officially speaks the word of God) and that everyone must be subject to the Pope to be saved = this Antichrist would set himself up over all of the God-given representatives and insist that salvation could be had only by accepting his authority.

I apologize for jumping in here; however, the above reference to the example from scripture needs further clarification. “…he would exalt himself above everything that is called God and worshipped and proclaim himself to be God.” Whose interpretation follows that verse? Because the interpretation exhibits a pure case of prejudice.
Being the Pope is part of everything that is called God. The person who is the anti-Christ is outside of everything that is called God. The position of Pope cannot be separate from what is called God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why would justification and the papacy be more dangerous than the removal of the real presance and baptism as a sign only?

The belief that Baptism is a sign only does not change the nature of Baptism. A Baptist baptism is as effectual as a Catholic or Lutheran baptism. The Real Presence is a much more significant departure from orthodox Christianity. No false teaching is good…including the false view of Baptists and symbolists.

The doctrine of justification, however, teaches the means by which we appropriate the righteousness of Christ. If a person believes their good works are appropriating the merits of Christ, there is a serious problem there.

As for the papacy, it is mainly the danger of blind adherence to doctrine that can be caused by a figure who has replaced, in many ways, the Word of God (not all Catholics are going to do this, of course. Which is why it is not necessary to be Protestant to be a born anew Christian. The danger is there, however.)

A little yeast leavens the whole lump.

 

[ralphinal]

The belief that Baptism is a sign only does not change the nature of Baptism. A Baptist baptism is as effectual as a Catholic or Lutheran baptism. The Real Presence is a much more significant departure from orthodox Christianity. No false teaching is good…including the false view of Baptists and symbolists.

The doctrine of justification, however, teaches the means by which we appropriate the righteousness of Christ. If a person believes their good works are appropriating the merits of Christ, there is a serious problem there.

As for the papacy, it is mainly the danger of blind adherence to doctrine that can be caused by a figure who has replaced, in many ways, the Word of God (not all Catholics are going to do this, of course. Which is why it is not necessary to be Protestant to be a born anew Christian. The danger is there, however.)

A little yeast leavens the whole lump.

So, is it better to follow Rome, keep valid sacraments and proper understandings of the Real Presence, along with Grace leading to faith, or follow another man’s take on it?

I see no difference between following a pope and following Calvin or Luther or any preacher on earth as far as the ability to shift focus from Christ to a man. ASk the folks that Jim Jones affected or anyone else caught in a cult.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So, is it better to follow Rome, keep valid sacraments and proper understandings of the Real Presence, along with Grace leading to faith, or follow another man’s take on it?

It would be better to follow Rome, with the valid sacraments, and deny its teaching on justification, than be a Baptist or a Calvinist.

I see no difference between following a pope and following Calvin or Luther or any preacher on earth as far as the ability to shift focus from Christ to a man. ASk the folks that Jim Jones affected or anyone else caught in a cult.

Yeah…that sort of cultic behavior can happen. It is one thing for it to happen with 500 people and another with close to a billion. I understand your point, of course, but we do not assign Luther any infallible qualities and disagree with him on several things. Not all of his writings are considered “confessional.” The Pope, by virtue of his office and the doctrine it teaches, is another thing entirely.

 

[Ronald_E]

The belief that Baptism is a sign only does not change the nature of Baptism. A Baptist baptism is as effectual as a Catholic or Lutheran baptism. The Real Presence is a much more significant departure from orthodox Christianity. No false teaching is good…including the false view of Baptists and symbolists.

The doctrine of justification, however, teaches the means by which we appropriate the righteousness of Christ. If a person believes their good works are appropriating the merits of Christ, there is a serious problem there.

As for the papacy, it is mainly the danger of blind adherence to doctrine that can be caused by a figure who has replaced, in many ways, the Word of God (not all Catholics are going to do this, of course. Which is why it is not necessary to be Protestant to be a born anew Christian. The danger is there, however.)

A little yeast leavens the whole lump.

There is danger in blind adherence to any doctrine. How does one know whether or not their adherence to a doctrine is blind?

When there is rebellion and both are guilty of sin in that rebellion as in the split between Luther and the Church it clearly states in Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

By splitting the Body of Christ because of sin Luther set himself up as above all that is God and created what we have today. Luther’s action could be considered as anti-Christ.

Blind adherence to doctrine today can be adherence to the doctrines associate with what evolved out of the Reformation in which generations of people are born into and socialized in the teachings of the Reformation.

 

[TriuneUnity]

There is danger in blind adherence to any doctrine. How does one know whether or not their adherence to a doctrine is blind?

Based on whether that person’s word is simply taken as writ.

When there is rebellion and both are guilty of sin in that rebellion as in the split between Luther and the Church it clearly states in Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Doesn’t apply to those who teach false doctrine.

 

[Ronald_E]

Based on whether that person’s word is simply taken as writ.

Doesn’t apply to those who teach false doctrine.

Luther’s action of leaving the Church is his doctrine being acted out. His action is false doctrine. Our Lord’s actions created the Church. His actions are described in words and these words create doctrine.
Luther’s action is a false doctrine. Therefore, his reformation can be seen as anti-Christ.
Jesus could speak the Truth from now until eternity, but, it was and is His actions that give life to His Words.
Luther’s action is his false doctrine that is the foundation of Protestantism.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Luther’s action of leaving the Church is his doctrine being acted out. His action is false doctrine. Our Lord’s actions created the Church. His actions are described in words and these words create doctrine.
Luther’s action is a false doctrine. Therefore, his reformation can be seen as anti-Christ.
Jesus could speak the Truth from now until eternity, but, it was and is His actions that give life to His Words.
Luther’s action is his false doctrine that is the foundation of Protestantism.

Who wants lunch?

 

[turnorburn]

So, is it better to follow Rome, keep valid sacraments and proper understandings of the Real Presence, along with Grace leading to faith, or follow another man’s take on it?

I see no difference between following a pope and following Calvin or Luther or any preacher on earth as far as the ability to shift focus from Christ to a man. ASk the folks that Jim Jones affected or anyone else caught in a cult.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Say there Ralph your talking about following this one or that one, and you see no difference “right” I follow Jesus, isn’t that what a Christian is supposed to do?

 

[Peter_J]

For historical reference, though, it is important to point out that none of the “Lutheran fathers” considered the Zwinglians and proto-Calvinists to be Christian at all, whereas Catholics were.

Interesting. I guess it puts the full communion between the ELCA and the PCUSA in a new light. uch: (Not to mention the UCC. )

I think I may have heard, several years ago, a reference to early Lutherans and Calvinists not being sure that they were worshipping the same Christ; but I guess I just assumed that they had even greater doubts about the “papists” than they did about each other.

 

[Peter_J]

2 Thessalonians 2:4 he would exalt himself above everything that is called God and worshipped (i.e. everyone who is to be honored as God’s representative in the family, government, and church) and proclaim himself to be God (cf. the papacy’s claim that the Pope speaking officially speaks the word of God) and that everyone must be subject to the Pope to be saved = this Antichrist would set himself up over all of the God-given representatives and insist that salvation could be had only by accepting his authority.

I think, in general, that would qualify as enough.

Except that there are some significant problems with it. For one thing, consider “… insist that salvation could be had only by accepting his authority”. It’s true that the Catholic Church teaches that the pope jurisdiction is universal, cf. Unam Sanctum, but it does not teach that everyone who doesn’t accept his authority, or who disobeys a command the pope gives, or disagrees with something the pope proclaims, necessarily goes to hell.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Interesting. I guess it puts the full communion between the ELCA and the PCUSA in a new light. uch: (Not to mention the UCC. )

Not to mention the Unitarian Universalists. That raises serious questions about the validity of ELCA and other Baptisms.

I think I may have heard, several years ago, a reference to early Lutherans and Calvinists not being sure that they were worshipping the same Christ; but I guess I just assumed that they had even greater doubts about the “papists” than they did about each other.

“Our spirit is different from yours; it is clear that we do not possess the same spirit, for it cannot be the same spirit when in one place the words of Christ are simply believed and in another place the same faith is censured, resisted, regarded as false and attacked with all kinds of malicious and blasphemous words. Therefore, as I have previously stated, we commend you to the judgment of God. Teach, as you can account for it before God.” (Luther, at the close of the Marburg Colloquy)

“I testify on my part that I regard Zwingli as unchristian, with all his teachings, for he holds and teaches no part of the Christian faith rightly. He is seven times worse than when he was a papist, according to the declaration in Matthew 9 [12:45], “The last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” I make this testimony in order that I may stand blameless before God and the world as one who never partook of Zwingli’s teaching, nor will I ever do so.”