The Bible teaches us that all people are either for Christ, or against Christ, hence the terms, “pro” or “anti” Christ. (
Mt. 12:30; Mk. 9:40; Lk. 11:23) However, the prefix “anti” can also mean “in place of,” or “seeking/trying to take the place of.” Therefore, an “antichrist” is a person or institution that EITHER openly opposes Jesus Christ and His Gospel, or endeavors to supplement or replace Him and His plan of salvation by grace alone through faith.
Out of all the antichrists in the world, one is referred to specifically in the Bible as THE Antichrist. (
1 Jo. 2:18; and 2 Th. 2:1-12) The “marks” or signs by which we can recognize and identify this Antichrist are listed especially the Second Thessalonians passages:
- The Antichrist causes a rebellion against Biblical truth (verse 3).
- This rebellion leads to sin and a great “falling away” from the pure Gospel faith (also verse 3).
- The Antichrist claims divine authority in all earthly affairs (verse 4).
- The Antichrist sets himself up as supreme in the entire visible church on earth (also verse 4).
- The Antichrist looks holy and good and seems to be doing God’s work. (still verse 4).
When one looks at both secular and church history, only one institution fits this description –
the Roman Papacy. For example, it opposes the pure Gospel of Christ, that is, justification by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ.
Canon 9 of the Council of Trent of 1547 states emphatically, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be damned.” The Papacy also claims to be the sole authority on earth over both church and state. The
documents of Vatican II, 1964, proclaim, “In this Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls. He is therefore endowed with the primacy of ordinary power over all churches.”
And the Papal pronouncement, “Unam Sanctum” of 1303 says, “The dogma of papal supremacy condemns the assertion by the State of any power over the church. The temporal power of princes does not exempt them from obedience to the head of the Church. The supremacy of the Pope, even in temporal things, is to be at all times enforced.” The Roman Papacy even demands obedience to it for the eternal salvation of any and all persons.
 |
| Luther Burns the Papal Bull – the Decree of the Anti-Christ – which "condemned" him. |
The same document, “Unam Sanctum” bluntly states, “It is necessary to salvation that every person should submit to the Pope.” And the Office of the Pope claims infallibility in decreeing all articles of faith.
One of the main pronouncements of Vatican I in 1870 says, “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ in discharge of the office of Pastor of all Christians, is possessed of infallibility.”
Therefore, the conclusion is clear and inescapable –
the institution or office of the Roman Papacy is indeed The Very Antichrist spoken of in the Bible. This does not mean that any particular individual Pope is the Antichrist, or even an antichrist in the wider sense of the term, or that these men cannot also be Christian believers and thus saved and in heaven with God for eternity.
Rev. Steven Spencer
4 comments:
If the papal office ITSELF is the Antichrist, then the one HOLDING the office is ALWAYS the Antichrist. If you want to speculate that individual popes died trusting in Christ, go ahead, but which of them EVER publicly REPUDIATED the power and authority CLAIMED for their office? (Yes, one medieval pope was forced to resign, and some anti-popes resigned, but those resignations did NOT repudiate the power and authority CLAIMED for the office which they had held/claim to hold.)
Are you claiming, as with the ALC (1930 merger) in its fellowship talks with the LCMS, that the Antichrist, once revealed, MAY assume some OTHER form prior to Christ's return, such that the pope will NO LONGER be the Antichrist?
The idea of faith in Christ coexisting with the office of the Antichrist violates the whole principle of the office of "another Christ." To be the "vicar of Christ," one MUST reject Christ as Head of His OWN Church.
This is somewhat tangential, but there is currently a debate within Romanism on whether married priests in the Western part of the church, who are mostly ex-Anglicans, are obliged to be celibate and thus refrain from marital relations. The Canon Law is quite unambiguous on the matter: clerics are required to be celibate and no exceptions are made. Rome is expected to rule on the matter at some stage, and no doubt many of those Anglican ministers who "swam the Tiber" recently (and perhaps even a few crypto-Romanist Lutheran pastors?) will be waiting with bated breath for that ruling. In light of the Biblical teaching on marriage, I suggest this is another indicator that the spirit of Antichrist holds sway over Rome.
Mark,
Actually, the topic is not at all a tangent. Since the Office of the Pope claims the right to interfere in the God-instituted estate of marriage, that itself certainly shows the spirit of antichrist quite definitely, and is therefore a mark of THE Very Antichrist. How the "Holy See" will come down on the issue is hard to say. Just from anecdotal evidence I have read, many Anglicans and Lutherans who have crossed the Tiber seem to have the attitude that they should - out of deference to their new brothers and sisters in the ministry - refrain from marital relations. But this again is only anecdotal, and I have no idea what the percentages are.
Thanks for your question.
Pastor Spencer
Pastor Spencer,
It seems to me that since the canon is so clear and the Pope has in recent years reiterated the requirement for the celibacy of Latin rite priests, it is quite possible the Vatican will enforce "continence within marriage" on ex-Anglican and ex-Lutheran priests. Personally, I believe the anti-Christian and devilish nature of enforced celibacy is seen in the priestly pedophilia crisis and the numbers of Roman priests who must live with a bad conscience because they have girlfriends (and, alas, even boyfriends) outside of marriage. Im also not sure of the numbers, but I believe the anecdotal evidence of priestly "concubines" is so great as to be irrefutable. Of course, this has been going on for centuries.
Post a Comment
Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of the moderators.
Since anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog, please sign your full name at the bottom of every comment, unless it already appears in your identity profile.