Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
Would not calling himself the Substitute of the Son of God(Vicaris Filii Dei) be in effect a denial of the Lord Jesus coming in the flesh? Not to mention taking on the offices of Christ such as the forgiveness of sins, the Office of High Priest etc.
Quote from Pergamum
In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
John is firstly addressing the Christians of his day, not us. The antichrist of their day was Christian Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a specific example of an antichrist, the antichrist which was prominent in John's day. It maintained the name "Christian" while denying the truth and power of Christianity. It set up a false, pseudo-Christ in place of the real Christ. Antichrists are particularly dangerous because of the confusion involved, and that the Devil is posing as Christ, Christian, Christianity.
The Papacy does this, as does Liberal Theology. Fairbairn excellently shows that the specific example of an antichrist, gnosticism, isn't the definition of what an antichrist is. An antichrist is any idol that looks superficially or subtly Christian/Christ-like, that's put in Christ's place.
"Christian" Gnosticism was just an early example of an antichrist.
See Patrick Fairbairn's section on Antichrist/antichrists in his "Interpretation of Prophecy" which is online. He explains the passages on this subject more eloquently than I could.
It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean...
It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?
It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean...
It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?
It sometimes seems to me as if in our day, the antichrist of Rome (which there's no doubt Rome is) is close to being outclassed by the antichrist which I don't have a name for, but it's the liberal/libertarian/ecological/only-intolerance-is-sin/political correctness antichrist. if you know what I mean...
It's becoming more of a one-world-religion even than Rome ever was. Can a more or less impersonal cultural movement be an antichrist?
But it isn't pretending to be Christian.
Secular humanistic democratic societies, hardening into fundamentalist atheism/agnosticism with a persecutory edge, are a revival of the first beast of Revelation, which has never completely gone away and is represented by Nero and the Roman Empire, and has been fulfilled down through church history in paganism and statist persecution. Manifestations of this have been, the French Revolution, Communism, Islam, all sorts of false religion that doesn't pretend Christianity, Fascism/Nazism.
The politically correct fundamentalist secular humanistic "democratic" West, is the third ugly sister along with Fascism/Nazism and Communism in a trio of twentieth century humanistic experiments. Nationalistic humanism and Marxist humanism, destroyed themselves, or had to be destroyed quicker, only because they were more self-consciously and viciously humanistic to start out with.
The West is going down hill slowly but surely, yet accelerating since WW II, and particularly in recent years. One day Christianity will be in the ascendency in the West again.
In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
In I John it seems to identify Antichrist with denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. To my knowledge, has the Pope ever done this?
The argument is sometimes made that the Marian doctrines have the effect of essentially denying that Christ has come in the flesh.
First, because Catholics claim that Mary was unstained by sin, some say they are denying that Christ came from true, sinful humanity. Second, catholics assert Mary's perpetual virginity, going so far as to claim that Christ's birth did not even disrupt the birth canal, and that it brought no pain in childbearing, etc., (although I'm not sure how they explain all that.); but because of this it is also argued that it denies, in some sense, Christ's natural humanity.
I'm not saying I agree with this line of argument, but it is sometimes made.