|
[Mon, May 2, 2005, 4:07pm]
Thomas:
I suppose since you sent this to me, maybe I'd better at least give "some answer." I guess instead of arguing why "you should believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ" (which even if I were able to do it, wouldn't really be of any help--you already believe in Jesus Christ, and even though you cannot see Him now, you love Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, and are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your soul), it seems best for me to state "why you have not convinced me that I shouldn't worry about the papacy anymore as an office instituted among men by the devil, who introduces doctrines developed in the seminaries of hell."
First off, on your work: it's very good, very thorough. But you were reacting to {a "popular" presentation, rather than a "scholarly" presentation}--the "your questions please" thingy. ... I've never been too sure about those "question" types of things: they're popular, people seem to like them; but often, when questions get e-mailed or mailed or phoned in or asked on the spot, it's like someone expects an answer that satisfies what maybe a whole quarter of a Bible class might be needed to answer, or even more. ... So the one-page answer regarding the doctrine of the Anti-Christ is going to be lacking no matter who writes it. There are actually more than three points regarding just the section in 2 Thessalonians. The "People's Bible: Thessalonians" by David Kuske, a sort of "lay commentary," lists nine points in regard to the verses. That actually has a bit more on what you note was missing here: the historical context/overall context.
Context-wise about "temple of God" without an added divine clarification being spoken of in some sort of symbolic, figure of speech, sort of way: First off, I'm glad to see you've noted that these Scriptures are not the words of men, but the very words of God: your whole list speaks of the Holy Spirit's usage, not Pauline usage, Johannine usage, etc., as if there were three or four different schools of doctrine presented in holy writ. So I suppose what I am about to say will sound as if I disagree that these men spoke by the Holy Spirit, and even the words themselves were chosen by God. You've got the wide context first, the whole New Testament: from the Gospels all the way to Revelation, to make your point: "temple" without clarification always means "temple," primarily the actual structure at Jerusalem. Narrower context (from your own list), of Paul's usage, with four using the phrase (yes, along with the clarification), as "believers in Christ," the one in 2 Thessalonians without, doesn't convince me that there will be another temple built at Jerusalem "some day" where some man of lawlessness will seat himself. And as far as going from "narrow to wide" in context, that's the general principle. But you could be correct on the term "temple" being "non-symbolic."
Another matter with historical context of the epistles, which the aforementioned "People's Bible" brings up, is that Jesus had already made clear that the physical temple in Jerusalem would soon be left without one stone on the other. Paul, an apostle, would have known this. As Saul, he'd probably already heard it and even prosecuted/persecuted Stephen for repeating it (apparently, the "prosecuting attorney" watched over the cloaks of those who carried out executions of stoning--gives a little understanding to why Luke makes sure we know they laid their cloaks at Saul's feet at the death of Stephen). So again, your argument doesn't quite convince me that "God's temple" SHOULDN'T be taken as a figure of speech. Add in that as you say it's apocalyptic, and symbolic understanding crops up again. Actually, you asked the first question rightly: why shouldn't this be taken literally, without symbolic speech? What is there that militates against it? And you go to the rest of the Scripture to point it out. It just doesn't convince me that I should solemnly recant my own "so help me God" in regard to abiding by the Lutheran Confession "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (which, again, is not entitled "the Pope is the Anti-Christ," but after going through all the claims of divine authority over body, soul, church, state, home, even Scripture that the papacy makes for itself, gets into "aren't these the marks of the very Anti-Christ?").
The second WELS item you dealt with was the Committee on Inter-Church Relations statement: you seem to focus on the two things stated, "historical interpretation" and "not an open question." Regarding recognizing the Anti-Christ by the marks given in Scripture would demand a "historical interpretation" of sorts: Just as recognizing the Christ by the fulfillment of prophecy given in Scripture would have demanded a "historical interpretation" of sorts (i.e. born in Bethlehem, born of a virgin, of David's line, called a Nazarene, look on one pierced, lame walk, good news preached to the poor, etc.). But that's not quite the point of using the phrase within the internet document. It's actually used more against something sort of "in vogue" among various Lutheran synods: a "historical" subscription to the Lutheran confessions. Sort of like saying "I subscribe historically to the Declaration of Independence"--I believe that they believed it was self-evident that man has been endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights. ... "Open question" also is loaded with "confessional" and ecclesiastical ties: in matters of church fellowship (small "c," namely who "can we work together with in united mind, speech, etc., regarding doctrine, practice, worship" and not Church fellowship, large "C," i.e. "who will we see in heaven someday" and "when we pray 'thy kingdom come' who is benefitting"), not just the question of "who is the Anti-Christ?" So you ended up dealing with a document written for a {slightly} different argument. ... [I]solationist tendencies keep us talking in terms that might be helpful when dealing with other Lutheran church bodies, but not necessarily with other {denominationally backgrounded folk} that might come across our stuff on the internet. ... I think that the 1970's/1980's attempt to make a "clear confession" of what we believe, teach, and confess entitled "This We Believe" might also have a statement on the Anti-Christ, probably dealt with under the part concerning either "last times" or "the Holy Christian Church" or something. I don't know for sure. But that document, too, wasn't necessarily the most clear thing to anyone who hasn't read three or four volumes of various Lutheran dogmatics text books, etc. A good confession ought ... clearly set the lines of where one stands {on Scripture so that one can either agree, and join together, or disagree and avoid error. But confessions also sometime tend to be weighted down with matters of a present situation, which might confuse those not caught up in the debate at hand--your good scholarship helps demonstrate that weakness with the aforementioned "official" doctrinal statements}.
But again, back to the point "why aren't I convinced by your good scholarship that I should abandon my own confession that the papacy and the kingdom of the Pope is the very Anti-Christ which Christ and His apostles have warned us of in advance to beware of and not be led astray as we wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring us to eternal glory?" Back to your e-mail ... Pastor Gurgel does make an exegetical leap from "lie" to "self-righteousness." But again, his little article was a short summary of everything: it wasn't necessarily an exegetical paper. Not to make light of it, but your work ... seems to me as a college linebacker tackling some coach of peewee football running backs who is just trying to teach some little kid what hole to run through. I'd suggest again, although it does not necessarily get into the Greek text, that the Kuske "Thessalonians" would be a better matchup; but that's not the only section from which the statement "the Pope is the Anti-Christ" gets its impetus: again, see "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" for the other scriptural testimonies applied to the matter at hand. Along with it, would probably include dealing with why Lutherans reject the various ideas of some earthly, visible, millennial kingdom of Christ appearing on earth, and the nature of Christ's kingdom itself. Understanding Christ's kingdom and the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven will help greatly in recognizing the kingdom of the Anti-Christ and anti-christs. ... Scriptural usage of the phrase "kingdom of God" (at least, in the Gospels and Acts, from what I remember) has mainly to deal with everything God does to save sinners, especially working and ruling in hearts by the good news of salvation. I guess my point is: knowing the authentic, helps in spotting the fake.
Which comes to my own simple reason why the papacy (the office, not necessarily the man--but even the Roman church recognizes a difference, hence the "re-naming" of Karol Wojtyla to JPII, or Joseph Ratzinger to Benedict XVI) still remains the "capital A" Anti-Christ, the great antagonist of Christ's Church throughout the Last Days (which had already arrived when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost day at Jerusalem, fifty days after Christ had risen from the dead, ten days after He had ascended into heaven). {Read the following as a comparison between the "kingdom of God/ruling of God" and the "working of Anti-Christ." It's more sort of a "teaching" outline than "exegetical" work, but it's simple and it works for me.} You're probably familiar with the "three offices of Christ." He is the Prophet who was to come, and still remains as the great Prophet whom God had promised so long ago through Moses. Christ yet proclaims God's Word to this world through the Scriptures, through His apostles, through His gifts of pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc., through His Christians. Christ is our great High Priest, as Hebrews goes into great detail, who sacrificed Himself once for all for the sins of the world, who yet intercedes for us, through whom alone we come to the Father. He makes His believers also to be "priests" before God too, who offer spiritual sacrifices (especially those matters of the heart, and fruits of the Spirit, peace, patience, thanksgiving, heartfelt praise to God, etc., no matter what outwardly they might be doing--work on the job as "serving the Lord, not men" is far more pleasing to God than a huge collection of money for a church building that was given grudgingly), pray for themselves and others, and declare the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His wonderful light. Third, Christ is called a King, King of kings, Lord of lords. He rules in hearts by His Gospel ("my kingdom is not of this world ... I testify to the truth; those on the side of truth listen to me..."), He rules over all things ("everything under His feet, seated at God's Right Hand"), even the nations are a drop in the bucket for Him. In general, I've noticed that many "anti-christs" or anti-Christian teachers, who speak against the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, refuse primarily either to allow Him one office or another. By teaching otherwise than He does, they seek to replace Him as Prophet. By wanting to be saved in some other way than Him crucified, they seek to replace Him as Priest. Rarely, do you run into someone who also seeks to take away His office as King: although whenever someone would, in the name of God or Christ, declare violent upheaval and use of the sword, even against "God's servant to do you good," they'd be rejecting Christ's authority over themselves, and also over all the world, as if He could not deliver His little flock from wicked governments. In general, every sort of anti-christ takes one or two or even all three offices from Christ and takes it up themselves as a group, or oneself as a leader of such a group. But the Anti-Christ, the "man doomed to destruction" or "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness" spoken of in 2 Thessalonians, was already "at work," and also "on the way" back at that time, and would remain until Jesus destroyed him by His coming at the end of time. Now the papacy definitely takes all three offices from Christ, and puts them in his/its own pocket: is Jesus the Prophet, God's own "last word" to us, "in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, who is the radiance of His glory"? No, "pastor aeternus, ex cathedra," whose statements, even when contrary to Scripture, even when contrary to a church council, cannot be annulled, but must be taken and regarded as if spoken directly by a voice from heaven. That has not changed, nor will it. The official Vatican website [ http://www.vatican.va/ ] still refers to the Pope as the "supreme authority." So that's one office of Christ taken by the papacy--and it won't change until Christ comes again in glory. How about "Priest?" Sacrificing the mass is yet necessary, and without a pope Christians on this earth are out of luck for getting priests, because only a pope, and not Christ, can really pass on any sort of "priestly" ability to anyone. How about "King?" Passing more than advice on to governments, but decrees and statements, and having ambassadors from nations to the Vatican, etc., seems to me more than just "practical Christianity in a godless world." Again, is it the men themselves in these offices working all this? No. It's the mystery of Anti-Christ at work.
I remember hearing a radio spot on some "classic rock" station: they'd play music from certain years, and introduce the night's theme with some radio spot from that year's news history. The one for the late 70's started off with a radio spot back when JPII got elected as pope. Some woman (I assume a nun or "mother superior" or something) started off saying, "I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all people" (I'm driving as I hear this and am thinking, "oh, is it Christmas time?"), and then she says (as if kicking baby Jesus out of His manger cradle) "we have a pope." I about flipped my car. I've read through parts of the most recent RC Catechism (commissioned by Pope JPII [ http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm ]): very confusing setup. Some statements are very good--but then, read enough and have the virgin Mary put in the place of the Holy One born of her, and the sickening bitter stomach cramps confirmed again to me: "Anti-Christ is coming; Anti-Christ is here." The most recent pope has a pretty good homily on the website, pointing often to Christ: good. The LORD yet sets tables amid the presence of the enemies of His sheep; and Christ yet rules amid His enemies. But even if a pope is "martyred" for the Christian faith, it won't ever just be for the name of Christ. It will be also as a "witness" for the anathema spoken upon all who believe, teach, and confess that we are justified by faith alone, and not by works (Council of Trent, I forget the article...), and every other "doctrine of devils" instituted by this great lamb-like beast, which takes all sorts of authority over the souls of men, even that which ought be reserved for God alone. You quote a preacher saying that the papacy hasn't done as bad as what Scripture talks about: it seems to me, that God had such fantastic, terrifying visions and pictures to make clear just how dangerous seemingly innocuous things actually are. For example, in Revelation 9, the picture of false teachers being a horde of biting, stinging locusts with faces that looked like men; who would think a pair of well-dressed {insert various heresies/cults/whatever here} would be that dangerous to the soul? As far as there perhaps, in the not so distant future, being some rebuilding effort of an actual temple in Jerusalem, where some greater degree of "fulfillment" might crop up--I'll keep an eye out. But considering history, if there was a huge temple built in Jerusalem, on the spot of Solomon's temple, in the place where Christ drove out money changers, ended His ride on Palm Sunday, and where the Church was born on the day of Pentecost, I'm sure one of the first people who would clamor for a throne there, would have the title "Pope" before his name.
I mentioned "open questions" before, not necessarily referring to exegetical work, but confessional statements. Here's the difference: in exegesis, there are many "open questions." For example, was John 3:16 spoken by Jesus in His discourse with Nicodemus, or did John add it in as further commentary? "What difference does it make?" It's an "open question." Whether Jesus said it, or John wrote it, it's yet the truth. I suppose, even the question whether or not "temple" in 2 Thessalonians refers to the Church as we see it, or some actual temple to be rebuilt, could even fall under "open question." You've presented great amounts of evidence to the latter; my reasons for taking the former are far weaker. But it still doesn't make much of a difference. The question regarding the Anti-Christ, however, as to "who is he? What ought we beware of?"--that, as a matter of doctrine, does make a difference. That's why confessionally, not exegetically, WELS folk like me don't count it as an "open question."
What difference does it make? Will anyone be damned to hell who fails to recognize the Anti-Christ? No. It's not faith in an anti-christ that saves; it's faith in Christ Jesus. The difference does come down to this: either the Anti-Christ is here now, and ever getting more to turn from the saving faith, and getting ever worse, and the Last Day is soon to come, or there's nothing to be afraid of now, but only in the distant or not so distant future when this or that happens in Jerusalem. In regard to the Pope, either one must regard him and his office as instituted by God (and therefore see to it that every Christian minister swear allegiance to the Pope, as every good Roman Catholic priest must do), or as a devilish monstrosity that Scripture clearly warns us about. If they don't believe it or teach it, they won't work too well with people like me, who aren't even going to bother wasting time trying to "get back together" with Rome, nor hope that somehow a new pope will "set things straight" in the world or among Christian peoples. Nor would I want anyone to have to bear the clear condemnations bestowed upon people like me throughout the various statements of stuff like the Council of Trent, Vatican I, II, etc., if they weren't sure of it. Does that mean, as a Lutheran, who has been cast out of the Pontiff's flock ... that I need not fear Anti-Christ, nor anti-christs among my own little church body? No. Whenever there's a hint of putting human authority over God's Word, or combination of church & state powers (note all the beasts in the prophets are earthly kingdoms; the grossest looking in Revelation are mixtures of both), or even someone making some stupid comment like "don't listen to God, listen to me" hey--wait a second--that's not Christ, but rather an anti-christ talking! And as there is always great talk among various Christians who want "us all to get along and have the kind of Church that Jesus wanted, where we all would be one as He and the Father are one, so what better way for Christians to do that and show that kind of unity than by all coming together under one head--the Pope," that office is just as dangerous to those within and without the Roman Catholic pale.
Which brings to mind another thing: every other proposed candidate for the Anti-Christ has been geographically confined or temporarily confined. For example, Adolf Hitler--yes, he claimed headship over "the church" when he made himself Reich's Chancellor, ridding pulpits of half the foundation--the prophets (and all "Jewish" writings); but his "1000 year reich" didn't last too long. It took longer for me to see Star Wars Episode IV come out on DVD, than the third reich lasted. So the "reich of Star Wars" actually had a longer reign than Hitler did. And that was localized to Germany/Europe. The papacy? Reaches its hand over all nations, where Christ said to go and make disciples, baptizing & teaching, as if over His authority, or only by its authority, Christ might actually expect that thing to be accomplished. Granted, the first official "pope" I suppose was about 500 or 600 AD? But even the Apostle John had a "run-in" with the "Anti-Christ" at work, in the person of Diotrephes who "loves to be first." But it's not without reason, not without good reason, that the WELS takes this position. It's not something to take lightly: if I myself were not convinced of it, I would have to answer to the Lord Jesus Himself as to why I happened to spurn His vicar on earth as the Anti-Christ, and declare myself a slanderer, who speaks abusively of divine glorious things {cf. 2 Peter 2:10, Jude 1:8}. Even being convinced of it I'll have to answer to the Lord one day for it {along with every other confessional Lutheran pastor, but then--every human being will have to answer to Him for even "every careless word."}, but I'll hang my head with more shame considering all the times I've been lax on it {and plenty of other things, the greatest being love}, than over-zealous on it {and plenty of other things, the greatest being love}. {Point being: it's a serious matter, to be seriously considered, and thankfully your e-mail gave me opportunity to seriously consider it once again. So thanks again for the work you put into it}.
Back in college, during Desert Storm (I), there was a plethora of books out in print, and plenty of pamphlets distributed by the cross-town Baptist Bible College and various local churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, etc., that said all those things signalled "Armageddon" and the "coming of the Anti-Christ" and either a pre-trib rapture, or post-trib rapture, or something or other: all the fear and worry, all the anticipation of either great things for Christ's people on earth, or terrible things for Christ's people on earth, depending on the theological bent. It wasn't too long before those things faded away, and what were "best sellers" lost any credibility, and any recognition as something that might actually be truly edifying to a soul. Whenever Christians, however, have given simple and clear teachings on Christ, forgiveness of sins, salvation, eternal life, the Holy Spirit, His gifts, etc., whatever their denomination or theological background, it's always been of blessing and benefit for more than one generation. That all of Scripture will be fulfilled? Yes, with certainty, amen, so shall it be. How exactly? Can't always say for sure. As to the Anti-Christ? I guess that's why Scripture calls it a "mystery"--one that needs be "revealed." And not by wise-sounding arguments, but only by the breath of the Lord Jesus Christ. But I write this not as if to suddenly convince you to put your name to the Book of Concord, including "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope," on the Pope/papacy being the very sort of thing Scripture warns us about, which has gotten the title "Anti-Christ" (even though the term "Anti-Christ/anti-christs" comes from John's epistles, it's sort of in that same vein as the word "triune" or "trinity," regarding what God reveals about Himself--a church term that's helpful, but limps entirely at the same time), but mainly to give reason for the hope I have: that when Christ comes again in glory, even the greatest adversary to His Gospel and His Church in this world will be destroyed, and no powers of hell given to this critter will avail. Nor will ...{any} anti-christ truly be able to snatch any one of Christ's sheep from His own hand. ... So, for what it's worth. ...
- RJL
{suggested reading: Hermann Sasse, "We Confess..." (volume 3, essay on "Last Things: Church & Anti-Christ"), some of that made it into my response above; Siegbert Becker's commentary on Revelation (Northwestern Publishing House, 1985) covers some of these matters with the "beast like a lamb" section (13:11ff.); online, might find essays at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library page [ http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/essayindex.htm ]; again, "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" [ http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.html ]}
|