Is the Papacy the Anti-Christ?!?

[Solja247]

Well I was debatating with a Catholic, I like to be object not subjective, and she told me that I have the catholic church all twisted up.

So why do we believe the Papacy is the Anti-Christ? Confession to a degree is scriptural etc. Anywas if I am supposed to tell people that the papacy is the Anti-Christ I need som evidence (more than the Sabbth to Sunday thing) Anyways God bless all and thank you.

[John317]

Please see these links:

http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br1914/brhc59.htm

http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br1914/brhc60.htm

http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br1914/brhc52.htm

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/jones/conway/conway12.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-12.htm

[BobRyan]

The Papacy is not the antichrist in the singular fashion you might have supposed.

In 1John 2 John states that "many antichrists have already come". There had been no Popes at all by that time.

So the term is a very general one that covers a host of errors, heresies, apostasy positions of those who "oppose the teaching of Christ" in some way. In Paul's day they were denying that "Jesus was the Messiah" 1John 2:22 -- denying the Godhead of the "Father and the Son".

Papacy is more specifically - the beast power of Rev 12, and the first beast power of Rev 13, and it is the "man of sin" in 2Thess2 claiming to sit in the seat of God -- and it is the "little horn" persecuting power of Dan 7 and 8.

The custom of calling Popes "antichrist" was first started by the popes themselves in the 15th century as they called each other by that title. Luther later picked up on that custom as his break with the RCC become more distinct. The custom has just kind of "stuck" since then as a general term for apostate teaching doctrines opposed to Christ.

But strictly speaking - to try and insert it into 1John 2:22 does not work with the Papacy.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

Bob I heard either Shawn Boonstra and/or Doug Batchelor mention this in there sermons during there meetings. I would add that to me the AntiChrist would be anyone that is not with Christ. I know this is very simplistic but that's me very simplistic.

pk

[BobRyan]

I agree - the term "antichrist" is the more general term and is applicable to dozens if not millions of cases. The Papacy being one.

The "man of sin" of 2Thess 2, and the "little horn" of Dan 7 and 8 or the beasts of Rev 12 and 13 -- all qualify for "Antichrist" in a general sense - but they identify the papacy in a specific sense -- unlike the term "Antichrist".

(Nothwithstanding the tried and true custom of Popes calling each other antichrist).

in Christ,

Bob

[Kevin H]

While there does appear to be a major Antichrist figure coming in the end, as other posters here said that there have been many antichrists. "Anti" in Greek means not "against" but "In Place of"

There is a tension in the Bible and the writings of Mrs. White between Spiritualism and the Beast. Spiritualism to Mrs. White is not the occult like it is to us. She saw the occult as only one of many means of spreading spiritualism. Spiritualism to her is "Live as you please for heaven is your home." The idea that the source of ultamate truth is with in ourselves, instead of in God. Spiritualism says that truth is purely subjective, or own subjective expirence. It is the Holy Spirit without God the Father and God the Son.

The beast on the other hand is any organized group we use to replace Jesus in our lives. Hezikiah's revival could have become a world wide revival leading to the setting up of the Kingdom of God. When Hezikiah was sick, God wanted him to pray for healing, God wanted to heal him and God wanted the envoys from Babylon to learn about Heaikiah's true treasure, his God. Instead of showing his true treasure, he showed them the temporal treasure. And instead of the envoys taking home the true treasure they went back with news of the temporal treasure with the idea that they'd be back to get the temporal treasure.

Thus instead of Hezikiah's revival converting the world and setting up the kingdom of God, The Babylonians came and set up their own kingdom in place of the messiah's kingdome, and so began 7 periods of antichrist:

Nebuchadnezzar had a dream, it had 4 major parts but 7 actual parts. The original context was 4 kings, with Nebuchandezzar being the head of Gold. then Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus. By Daniel 7 this gets expanded from kings to kingdoms; Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, and the other creature with all the horns. Rome came with it's emporers, there were 10 then came the flavaian family, who were little horns and uprooted 3 horns to gain power, the one brother, Titus destroyed the temple, the other Domiinatan sent John to Patmos and strongly enforced emporer worship and re-enstated the persecution of Christians that had existed under Nero.

Revelation expands Daniel's dream even more, from the 4 major parts to the 7 actual parts: Head of gold, breasts and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, feet of iron and clay, toes of iron and clay, and a final attempt of the toes to join together which ends in total chaos.

these 7 parts are the 7 periods of rule from the time that Hezikiah's revival could have lead to the kingdom of Christ, but was instead 7 periods of others ruling over the population areas where those God choose to lead the ministry to the world (Hebrews and Chirstians); with each cycle taking in more and more of the world until the final one includes the whole world, which can only be done today in the age of instant communications. These 7 periods, or 7 heads of the beast are: Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, The Holy Roman Empire (including Papal supremicy), the rise of independent nations, (the deadly wound to the beast) and the deadly wound being healed through economic cooperation, the world wide corporations.

While the Holy Roman Empire was the period of antichrist durring the reformation, of course the Holy Spirit would point them to pressent truth and focused more on the Papacy, instead of the larger picture.

However as time has gone by, and tradition grows, we have tried to pile more and more evidence on the one aspect, or want to throw it out.

The papacy was part of the 5th head.

As for 666: People liked numbers and names that would be equvalent with numbers, and many of the weathy liked their names to be variations of 666. To Jews and Christians they would notice that an Old Testament Character's name was 666: Nimrod the mighty hunter who set himself up before God, the first great Antichrist, the founder of Babylon. Then Nero, depending on if you use his whole name or part of his name comes to either 666 or 616. The idea of 666 is the setting up of someone in place of Christ, and healing the deadly wound is connected to the return to world empirors rulling in place of Christ and the raising up of the persecution of Nero.

Now the papacy, like the Flavaians over through 3 people to get it's power, but some of the prophecys we try to apply to the papacy we now know does not fit. We talk about the deadly wound in 1798 until the 1920s, however, the pope in 1798 was only taken prisioner and continued to run the church from prision, died soon there after and a new pope was elected and in a lot of ways was business as usual, except that as the 1800s went on the popes became even stronger.

We have two ditches we have to be careful of. First completely taking out the role of the Papacy in the Holy Roman Empire and not looking at the lessons it plays in anti-christ history and it's role as a type of the antitype to come. The other is to make the part the papacy plays the WHOLE story. Conservative Adventists tend to be very welcoming of the beast as long as he does not come from the vatican.