The Antichrist is Among Us
Today we saw the election of a new pope. This man, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, has been hailed as the leader of the church. However, it is necessary to specify what church he leads. I would argue that he certainly does not lead all Christians. Truly, if he follows his predecessors, he will not be leading Christians period. It might well be better stated that he leads Satan's church. Before you condemn me as an atheist, let me explain.
The office of the papacy has been responsible for perverting the Catholic Church for hundreds of years. There is no place in the Bible that gives credence to a teaching that tradition has any bearing in theology. Even when Paul praises the Corinthians for maintaining the minor tradition of headcoverings, it is merely to contrast with their abuses of doctrine that he condemns in the following verses. However, through papal edict, tradition has become a trump for doctrine in the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, purgatory has no Biblical basis. This is merely a tradition that the church has handed down. The pope claims divine basis for his edicts from his throne. Let us now examine some of these. He claims to be the vicar of Christ. Where in the Bible does this come from? John Paul II even had the hubris to compare his sufferings to that of Christ! How can a man of God say that anything that happens to him is comparable to Christ's sufferings? Christ was the perfect Son of God! No man can say he has any part in that. Christ's death was all that was needed for our sins. The Pope's death did nothing for my sins. Where's the comparison?
Likewise, the popes throughout the years have initiated a right of penance for sins, to help get rid of them. Where in the Bible is this even suggested? If we must do something to cover our sins, what was the point of Christ's death? If he, who lived a perfect life as the Son of God, could not atone for me, how can I be so bold as to think I can do anything to help myself? This is truly a faith destroying doctrine. If one can never be sure if one has done enough to be right with God, how can one come to the conclusion that God is anything more than a god that likes to play games with his people? This is as far from the loving God outlined in the Bible as one can get.
If the "Vicar of Christ" does little more than lead people away from Christ, what must then be said about him? The Bible says that the Antichrist will set himself up as Christ. Sounds an awful lot like vicar of Christ to me. He will also lead many away from the true, saving faith. As seen above, the papal office certainly does that. That is not the only way this happens. If anyone needs more proof, feel free to ask, but the case is pretty convincing. The office of the papacy, not necessarily a specific pope, is the Antichrist. The Bible bears out this thought. That is all the proof I need.
Disagree? Prove me wrong.
The office of the papacy has been responsible for perverting the Catholic Church for hundreds of years. There is no place in the Bible that gives credence to a teaching that tradition has any bearing in theology. Even when Paul praises the Corinthians for maintaining the minor tradition of headcoverings, it is merely to contrast with their abuses of doctrine that he condemns in the following verses. However, through papal edict, tradition has become a trump for doctrine in the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, purgatory has no Biblical basis. This is merely a tradition that the church has handed down. The pope claims divine basis for his edicts from his throne. Let us now examine some of these. He claims to be the vicar of Christ. Where in the Bible does this come from? John Paul II even had the hubris to compare his sufferings to that of Christ! How can a man of God say that anything that happens to him is comparable to Christ's sufferings? Christ was the perfect Son of God! No man can say he has any part in that. Christ's death was all that was needed for our sins. The Pope's death did nothing for my sins. Where's the comparison?
Likewise, the popes throughout the years have initiated a right of penance for sins, to help get rid of them. Where in the Bible is this even suggested? If we must do something to cover our sins, what was the point of Christ's death? If he, who lived a perfect life as the Son of God, could not atone for me, how can I be so bold as to think I can do anything to help myself? This is truly a faith destroying doctrine. If one can never be sure if one has done enough to be right with God, how can one come to the conclusion that God is anything more than a god that likes to play games with his people? This is as far from the loving God outlined in the Bible as one can get.
If the "Vicar of Christ" does little more than lead people away from Christ, what must then be said about him? The Bible says that the Antichrist will set himself up as Christ. Sounds an awful lot like vicar of Christ to me. He will also lead many away from the true, saving faith. As seen above, the papal office certainly does that. That is not the only way this happens. If anyone needs more proof, feel free to ask, but the case is pretty convincing. The office of the papacy, not necessarily a specific pope, is the Antichrist. The Bible bears out this thought. That is all the proof I need.
Disagree? Prove me wrong.
posted by vox_veritas at 4:40 PM
26 Comments:
This article is scary-and has merit. I am not catholic nor christian---but find it disturbing.I do think for years the catolic church has hidden truths and findings they don't want known to the general public.I dont think the pope should have any authority.The catholic church needs to get into the 21sy century.
"says a good deal about how little you seem to know. How would anything you wrote condem you as an atheist? And atheist does not believe in god, so would not believe in an antichrist. An atheist would not refer to either kind of christ at all."
A Catholic who reads the opening could well conceive of it as atheistic. One who denies, even condemns, the office of the "Vicar of Christ" would be denying Christ, atleast in their mind. A person who denies Christ has shown himself as an atheist to a Christian.
"How can a man of God say that anything that happens to him is comparable to Christ's sufferings? Christ was the perfect Son of God! No man can say he has any part in that."
"This is a trustworthy saying, if we die with Christ, we shall be raised with Christ."
2tim 2:11
We all suffer and with Christ so long as in our suffering we reach out to Him and identify with, I believe this is what the Holy Father had in mind.
totus tuus
Your essay could use a major revision if you really want to open a dialogue. Can you cite your assertions or are they just something you heard? Ad fontes is an excellent exercise; simply proclaiming "Where is that in the bible?" is not scholarship. The fact that you support an opinion with an opinion is not proof of anything but your opinion.
Good luck!
To Adam:
While I will grant that is certainly possible, I think there
Sorry Adam, computer fart.
I think there are good reasons not to find that a likely conclusion. First of all, would not a learned scholar such as the pope have made that clear? Secondly, he did not refer to his salvation, but to his suffering. To be part of Christ is not to be literally crucified . It is to have salvation from his sacrifice. No person can compare his worldly sufferings to that of Christ. We sin. He did not. He was completely innocent. I pray that the pope was addled by the pain he was in. I hope he had a solid basis for his statement. However, I cannot justify that hope from his quote.
I can certainly cite my assertions. If you like, I will. Let me know. My point remains. There is no Biblical basis for the papacy. My claims tract Biblical thought entirely.
The reference for the papacy is Matthew 16:18 and John 21:17.
Absolution of sin is referenced in Matthew 16:19.
While you may disagree with the interpretation of the passages, those are the passages.
John Paul II may have been paraphrasing Colossians 1:24 when he spoke of his own suffering.
Well done, Anonymous. The Colossians passage is a definite possibility. I sincerely hope that that was his intent.
To your other proof passages, here's my take: the Matthew account certainly establishes Peter as a key figure in the Church. His connfession is important. However, since no where else in the Bible is there clear evidence of ecclesiastical power falling to the bishop of Rome or any successor of Peter, I cannot hold it as true. However, I do welcome contradiction. As to the John passage, remember that Peter had denied Jesus three times. The triple confession was a sign to both Peter and the other disciples that Peter was still in the fold. It does not prove preeminence in the church.
Thank you for your honest response. I appreciate people who can discuss this soberly. Please, if you have anything further, let me know.
so every pope we had has been an antichrist?
Perhaps I was unclear. The papacy is the Antichrist, not any specific man. The reason for my view is Biblical. The office claims the rights of Christ, while being but imperfect humans. The papacy has issued many misleading, false, and faith destroying teachings. Subsequent popes have backed these up, misleading the faithful. Hence the papacy is the Antichrist.
Peter’s speech at Pentecost (Acts 2:14) places him in the position as first among equals: he is the one who stood and explained the meaning of the coming of the Spirit. In Acts 4:8 it is Peter on whom the Holy Spirit rests in answer to the Sanhedrin. In Acts 10:9 it is Peter whom is given the knowledge of Gentile entrance into the church such that at the first Council, in Acts 15:1, Paul goes to the Jerusalem concerning a doctrinal question. The question is answered via James using Peter’s revelation. Paul alludes to Peter’s position as first among equals in Galatians 1:18.
The only canonical reference to Peter’s leaving Judea is in Acts 12:17. Had Jerusalem not been burnt in 70 AD there would probably be a larger canon which included more of Peter’s letters. Non-canonical sources relay that Peter traveled to Rome. Again, a non-canonical source relays that Peter and Paul selected Linus to be the successor in the church of Rome and the same Linus is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.
Peter is certainly a leader, if not the leader, in the early Christian church. There is no denying that. I also have no doubt that he left Judea at so point. That said, I still have a few issues.
First, God has shown a remarkable tenacity in perserving his word; Jeremiah 36, for example. I cannot believe that he would allow documents proving Peter and his successors to be the head of Christianity for all time to be destroyed, especially since there were other main cities in Christianity at the time. Besides, not all the canonical books had been written at that point. It would track that someone else (John in Revelation, circa 90 AD, for example) would mention it. Peter wrote two letters, why wouldn't he mention it? Paul and Peter were close, as you said. Paul covered everything else; why not this? The holes are too big for me. Feel free to prove me wrong, if I have misrepresented the truth, however.
The canon records that Peter is the first called (c.f. Luke 5:1). The lists of apostles lead with Peter as in Luke 6:14, Mark 3:16, Matthew 10:2, and Acts 1:13. The canon records common knowledge: Peter lead the church to the best of his abilities, leadership as described in John 13:13; perhaps Peter did mention his own position in 1 Peter 5:13. Further, Paul acknowledges Peter’s position in 1 Corinthians 5:15. Previously in the letter (1 Corinthians 1:11) Paul admonishes the community for allegiance to individuals; divisiveness was not tolerated but Paul seemed comfortable with Peter as first among equals.
Perhaps Paul’s actions speak louder than any words he might have penned: it seems rather important to Paul to be in communion with the church in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26); Paul did not create his own church but sought to bring his testimony, his witness to the Risen Lord, to those who had also experienced the Risen Lord.
"One who denies, even condemns, the office of the "Vicar of Christ" would be denying Christ, atleast in their mind."
No, that would make you a protestant (possibly Orthodox).
"There is no Biblical basis for the papacy."
Sure there is renaming Simon Cephas (means Rock cannot be misinterpreted as pebble). Granting of Keys, Power to loose and bind and his threfold charge to Peter to "feed my sheep".
"no biblical basis for Purgatory"
Sure there is the "refiner's fire" describes what happens when we die, what is ignoble burns but what is noble stays and the person suffers as if through fire. That is purification or purgation. Don't think of Purgatory as a place but as a process and it's clearly in the bible.
"The papacy is the Antichrist, not any specific man. The reason for my view is Biblical. The office claims the rights of Christ, while being but imperfect humans."
No THE AntiChrist is A man according to the bible not a series of men. Also a 2000 year sucession of them does not fit into the biblical prophecies, Not ot mention the fact that the Vatican lies outside of the 7 hills. Also no rights of Christ are claimed and the authority weilded is that granted to the Church as hold of the Keys and as the Pillar and Bulwark (defensive)of the Truth.
To Anonymous_again:
We are certainly in agreement that Peter was a leader in the Church. Christ even does single him out. However, there are no, none, not any, nothing, an absolute lack of references concerning Peter's sucessors. The Bible is so clear on everything else, why would there be no mention of this in any way? That is one major obstacle, at least in my mind.
Concerning the relationship of Peter and Paul, look at Galatians 2:7. Paul rebuked Peter who was practicing something contrary to the vision he had before meeting Cornelius. Peter was certainly still fallible, even when God had spoke directly to him. In the council of Jerusalem, it was not Peter's but James' word that was final. How is Peter the leader in this case?
Two final questions: is 1 Cor 5:15 a typo? 1 Cor 5 only has 13 verses, both in Greek and English. Secondly, I did not understand your point with the 1 Peter reference. I would appreciate some enlightenment.
To the most recent Anonymous:
No, that would make you a protestant (possibly Orthodox).
True, but my point was this. To deny the pope is to deny his teachings, including his teachings on salvation that are extra-Biblical. To deny salvation is to deny God. God is love. Salvation is the ultimate act of love. To deny God's salvation is to deny God's love, which is to deny God. One who denies God is an atheist. Therefore if the pope has God's true plan of salvation, to deny him is to deny God, or atheism.
Sure there is renaming Simon Cephas (means Rock cannot be misinterpreted as pebble). Granting of Keys, Power to loose and bind and his threfold charge to Peter to "feed my sheep".
The Keys were meant for the entire church. Otherwise, only Peter could pronounce the forgiveness of sins. Yet other disciples, such as Ananias with Saul, were able to administer forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it tracks that the Keys, by virtue of their use, were for all. Cephas certainly points to him as a leader. But this was for his confession and clear understanding demonstrated by it. He was not always correct (deying Jesus, the Judaizer incident in Galatia). The threefold command was parallelism. Peter denied Jesus three times. he then confessed Jesus three times. And Jesus accepted three times. This was proof to the disciples that he was truly one of them again.
Sure there is the "refiner's fire" describes what happens when we die, what is ignoble burns but what is noble stays and the person suffers as if through fire. That is purification or purgation. Don't think of Purgatory as a place but as a process and it's clearly in the bible.
The refiner's fire is talking about the imperfect parts of our lives being removed from us at death, thus purifying us. It is not the fire, but our subsequent purity that is the point of the analogy.
No THE AntiChrist is A man according to the bible not a series of men. Also a 2000 year sucession of them does not fit into the biblical prophecies, Not ot mention the fact that the Vatican lies outside of the 7 hills. Also no rights of Christ are claimed and the authority weilded is that granted to the Church as hold of the Keys and as the Pillar and Bulwark (defensive)of the Truth.
Ok, so now all of Revelation is to be taken literally. I'll watch out for Iraqi hookers. All joking aside, Revelation is a vision. It is not intended to be taken as 100% literal history. It is a template, full of imagery so as to allow those who truly understand God's word to understand the signs of the end. The Vatican is in Rome. Its the Roman Catholic church. Pretty close, is it not? If not on the hills, the Papal throne is rather closely associated with them. To sell the forgiveness of sins (indulgences), to demand works for the forgiveness of sins (penance), is to claim the role of Christ. Christ never asked for these things. They are a human creation. As a human creation, they have no place in any true faith.
"We are certainly in agreement that Peter was a leader in the Church. Christ even does single him out. However, there are no, none, not any, nothing, an absolute lack of references concerning Peter's sucessors. "
Actually Linus is mentioned briefly, but the practice of consecrating new bishops and even replacement for the apostles is mentioned.
"Concerning the relationship of Peter and Paul, look at Galatians 2:7. Paul rebuked Peter who was practicing something contrary to the vision he had before meeting Cornelius. Peter was certainly still fallible, even when God had spoke directly to him."
Do not confuse infallability with impeccability (common mistake) infallability covers ONLY teachings as leader of the Church to the WHOLE church on matter of faith and morals. Rebuking Peter for his ACTIONS does not interfere with that in any way.
"In the council of Jerusalem, it was not Peter's but James' word that was final. How is Peter the leader in this case?"
So Peter didn't run the council. I cannot think of one Pope that has. But if you read you will see that Peter's pronouncement settled the debate.
Two final questions: is 1 Cor 5:15 a typo? 1 Cor 5 only has 13 verses, both in Greek and English. Secondly, I did not understand your point with the 1 Peter reference. I would appreciate some enlightenment.
I didn't make that statement it was a different anon....
The refiner's fire is talking about the imperfect parts of our lives being removed from us at death, thus purifying us. It is not the fire, but our subsequent purity that is the point of the analogy.
But there is a purification process... That is purgatory. We are cleansed as nothing impure can enter heaven. Even in protestant theology this must occur. But they will go to great lenghths to avoid saying so. Congrats... this puts you on the rare level as C.S. Lewis.
"The Vatican is in Rome. Its the Roman Catholic church. Pretty close, is it not? "
Since when is close good enough for prophecy?
"If not on the hills, the Papal throne is rather closely associated with them."
You're equvocating... you are foring the oval peg into the round hole. It might be "close" but that's not good enough.
"To sell the forgiveness of sins (indulgences), to demand works for the forgiveness of sins (penance), is to claim the role of Christ."
Where can I buy an indulgence? I keep looking because people keep telling me I can buy one but I cannot find it. I've searched and searched. You seem to know about it so where can I find them for sale?
Joking aside penetial acts are found in the NT and have a history in the OT. Matt. 6:16-18, Mark 2:18-20, Acts 13:2-3, Jas. 4:8-10... as to making them a condition for the forgiveness of sins, Christ gave the Power to forgive sins to the Church (first to Peter alone then later to all the apostles) binding and loosening... so if a condition is set for loosening by the Church then it is valid due to Christ's charge to the Church.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Actually Linus is mentioned briefly, but the practice of consecrating new bishops and even replacement for the apostles is mentioned.
I can only find evidence of Linus in 2 Tim 4:21. Am I missing something? How does this mention differentiate him from others Paul has mentioned in other letters? I am admittedly ignorant on this point. One apostle was chosen as a replacement for Judas. This is the only evidence I could find on the replacement of apostles. Paul was the last apostle chosen, as far as I can tell. Bishops were consecrated. However, there is nothing named in these ordinations that set up any of these men in Christ's stead.
Concerning the council of Jerusalem, my point was Peter's testimony was supplimental proof to Paul's work. Peter's vision was confirmation for their work. Peter did jepardize this with his later actions, however. This, along with no claim of headship by Peter (or anyone else for that matter) leads me to question the whole office of the papacy. Why would the Bible not explicitly name this office, if it was to exist?
If purgation is a process, its a fairly instantaneous one. Bear in mind Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, "TODAY you will be with me in paradise." This is not a process of years. There are also OT examples of people taken into heaven immediately. All these people were sinful. Are they now in heaven with their imperfections?
Since when is close good enough for prophecy?
Let me make an argument from absurdity, please. Where then is the statue described in Daniel? Should I be afraid of the Loch Ness monster (the beast from the sea)? Four guys on horses are not exactly treatening, given modern technology. I hope you see my point. Prophesy can be illustrative. It does not necessarily need specific, exact fulfillment. Rather it can point out what is coming (He who has ears, let him hear). There is a certain amount of discernment necessary.
Concerning indulgences, I was referencing the impetus of the Reformation. Furthermore, penitental acts are good things. They are a clear way to demonstrate sorrow for sins. However, they have no power to forgive sins. The edicts of men have no power over God's work. The Bible is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficent. If anyone claims that more is necessary for forgiveness, they are calling Christ's act insufficent. This is not for sinful man to decide. All sacrifices in the Bible were to point to Christ's sacrifice. With his work complete, there is no need for us to do any more than believe.
I referenced those passages in reply to another post. Sorry for any confusion.
So Peter didn't run the council. I cannot think of one Pope that has. But if you read you will see that Peter's pronouncement settled the debate.
How about the council of Chalcedon? Leo I sure had the last word there. Reference his tome, if you need proof.
Ok so, what is the papacy edict, and in what versus was paul condemning? you ought to (just a suggestion) expand the borders of the is article more and yes, quote scripture the best you can, remember, the Word is sharper than any two edged sword
Sir, we very well ought to not judge the pope, the Bible sais:\ those who do not confess/preach Jesus is Lord or Christ coming in the flesh is antichrist.
I think you are talking about 1 John 2. That verse, in the wider view of that chapter, could well be written anti-Christ. The article in the Greek does not mean that the word is definate. The NIV has a poor translation in this instance. There are indeed many who are against (anti) Christ. However, the Bible is clear that there will be one identifiable Antichrist. That is what this essay is meant to address.
But if you read you will see that Peter's pronouncement settled the debate.
James had the last word. He wrote the letter in Acts 15.
"THE REPLACEMENT OF JUDAS PROVES APOSTALIC SUCCESSION"
What about Judas did the apostles leave his place voided after his death? Is there sacred proof he had a successor? The answer is Yes! It has been recorded in writing in the New Testament: Acts, chapter 1 verses 15-26. There were two appointed Barsabas and Matthias. The Apostles praying to God for guidance, casted ballots amongst them and Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas. And now they are again 12 Apostles.
Not everything was recorded in writing. The Word of God is not only written down, but also revealed through Sacred Tradition (spoken teachings of Christ)2 Thessalonians 2:15
and by listening to the Church 1Timothy 3:15 So ask yourself if Judas had a successor, then every apostle of Christ after their death had to have had successors even Peter. Especially Peter , who held the highest position of the Church. If Judas' vacant place was important enough to find someone else to replace him, then imagine Peter how many times more !! Wasn't he the one who said You are the Christ the Son of the Living God ? The reason a person has not found the Truth is because they are lazy , lack of faith and letting Pride get in the way. You must first believe, trust in Christ he will help you understand once you find the Truth. What do you think Jesus meant when he said Seek and you Shall Find?! If you are still refusing to believe , this is a result of bad will and pride.
Post a Comment
<< Home