Anti-Christ. You keep saying that word. To quote a great movie: I do not think it means what you think it means. See Jon’s post above. The term, as used by the Reformers, meant ‘Someone or some authority that obscured the gospel.’ It does not necessarily refer to some singular, End Times being. Don’t confuse the ancient Lutheran understanding with modern-day “Left Behind” filth. Anti-Christ is a serious charge, no doubt, but not so outrageous - particularly when one considers the corruption of those who held the See of Rome at the time of the Reformation.
For those who wish to educate themselves, “Papal Primacy and the Universal Church - Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V” is useful.
Hi Steido,
I hope you have a Blessed and Holy Christmas,
Hi Steido,
I am fully familiar with the Lutheran tendency to dismiss the nutty and anti-Christian things that Luther said as being hyperbole or rhetorical or sarcasm or just “Good Ole Marty Being Marty”. I am also aware that people can create strawmen and redefine terms so as to make Marty ‘look better’ to our supposedly more sophisticated ears. You seem to believe that we should not take Luther’s “anti-christ accusation” against the Papacy so seriously, supposedly because it only means “Someone or some authority that obscured the gospel”. It seems that this is an important distinction for you, but in fact, Luther could not have been more clear about his beliefs about the Papacy being the anti-Christ. In all of my reading on Luther and the Reformation, I have never seen the spin that you put on this subject and I am very interested. Where did you come up with this idea? I would like to know because I want to see whether it was advanced by a reputable scholar.
As for what Luther actually thought about the papacy and the anti-Christ, the quotes from Protestant Scholars on the subject would fill volumes:
“With a growing conviction that the papacy is actually an instrument of the antichrist, Luther states his ecclesiological arguments ever more pointedly. The apocalyptic tone of his style becomes more pronounced. He feels himself increasingly dragged into the battle between God and Satan for the ultimate rule. This apocalyptic atmosphere of course leads Luther into making statements which in this form are no longer tenable in our modern ecumenical dialogue and which for that reason should not be repeated at all.” Markus Wreidt, (Lutheran Professor of Historical Theology) “Luther’s Theology”, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”
“In general Luther viewed the history of his own time as the realization of the apocalyptic predictions of Daniel and Revelation. The events of his age, he was convinced, were certain signs that the End Time was at hand…….This apocalyptic vision plays a major role in many of the polemics of the older Luther.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 97
“Apocalptic views and his vision of his own role in the final drama of the world play a highly significant role in his polemics. At this point there is need only to consider whether these views might in themselves be regarded as symptoms of psychological imbalance: and odd mixture of paranoia and delusions of grandeur. The older Luther did firmly believe that he was living on the eve of the Last Judgment. Once the papacy had been exposed by the Reformation as the antichrist seated within the church, the final battle had been joined. Satan had unleashed all his minions in a last, desperate attempt to defeat the servants of Christ. Luther’s polemics were a part of this final struggle.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 97
I have actually met a few people who today believe that the papacy is the antichrist. However, virtually all Christians today are far too intelligent and Scripturally sophisticated to believe such garbage. But Luther wasn’t. What would we think of a Christian leader today who spouted such nonsense about the papacy and believe and acted like he was in the End Times? Lutheran college President and Luther Scholar provides the only plausible answer by questioning Luther’s psychological balance. (Hey, if you don’t like it, take it up with Edwards).
Luther believed that Scripture was exceedingly clear on the major issues (like the papacy being the antichrist). As a result, if you didn’t agree with him, you were either lying (because you knew for a fact that he was right), or, you were willingly and knowingly in league with Satan. If somebody came to the forefront today teaching these kinds of things and acting the way Luther acted, would we be willing to follow him as he charged off into uncharted theological waters, seemingly not finding a doctrine that he didn’t need to alter? Should we be willing to follow someone who had based so much of their theology on such a poor understanding of Scripture? I’m just sayin.
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
So – it’s not just the popes that Luther hated, and wanted everybody else to hate, but individual Catholics themselves, especially those who defended the papacy. My guess is that I would not be invited to dinner in Wittenberg if I were in the area at the time.
In summary - in contradiction to your statement, when Luther used the term ‘anti-christ’ in regard to the papacy, he did not mean something so mild as “someone or some authority that obscured the gospel.” To him, there was a much more “real” and physical meaning. You can wish that that is not true if you like, but Luther’s thoughts on the matter are much too well documented.
God Bless You Steido, Topper
And while you are at it, you might also want to read Pope Francis’ comments to those who seek “idealogy”. Powerful words. Perhaps you can reconcile your statements with that of the Catholic Church?
Oh but if only Luther had followed that same advice!
Please forgive my sarcasm. My Catholic daughter-in-law will take me to task tomorrow].
)