- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The Antichrist
By Jimmy Akin
One of the most mysterious figures haunting the Christian imagination is the Antichrist. Innumerable works, both fiction and non-fiction, have been devoted to him. The concept is so compelling that even non-Christians use it. Muslims believe that at the Second Coming of Christ he will do battle with the Antichrist (Arabic, al-Dajjal).
But amid all the speculation about the Antichrist—much of it wild and fanciful—what do we really know about the figure?
Very little.
Four Mentions in Scripture
The Antichrist is mentioned by name in only four verses of Scripture: 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. There are other verses that many people link to the Antichrist, but since he isn’t named in them, the connection is not certain. The four Johanine verses must serve as the core of our knowledge before trying to link other verses to them.
In 1 John 2:18–19, we read, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”
This passage appears to speak of a major individual Antichrist, as well as many minor individual Antichrists, who apparently are apostate Christians for “they went out from us.” The appearance of the individual Antichrist is yet future (“Antichrist is coming”), but the presence of the many Antichrists is a signal that “it is the last hour.”
In 1 John 2:22–23, we read, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
This is consistent with the apostate nature of the many Antichrists, for they have “deny[ied] that Jesus is the Christ” and, in denying the Son, they have implicitly denied the Father. Presumably the same would be true of the individual Antichrist.
1 John 4:1–6 gives practical tests for discerning which spirits bearing revelation are from God and which are not. In John 4:3, we read that “every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”
This shows that the Antichrist movement is inspired by spirits bearing false revelation and that refuse to confess Jesus. This movement had begun in John’s day but would grow afterward.
Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).
Inferring other Antichrists
The four passages given above are all that the New Testament has to say about the Antichrist—at least under that name. But many have identified the Antichrist with the beast from the sea in Revelation 13 or with the “man of lawlessness” that Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
These identifications are reasonable, but must be understood with some nuance. The beast from the sea that John speaks of in Revelation is best understood in its initial, literal fulfillment as one of the early Roman emperors (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2113 on the past fulfillment of this prophecy). Yet, there are often multiple fulfillments of a single prophecy, and the beast may also point forward to an individual at the end of time who will be very much like the early Roman emperors.
Such an individual is easy to identify with Paul’s “man of lawlessness,” for he appears to be a still-future individual who does things like the Roman emperors. Paul states that he will one day manifest himself in the temple of God—which to a first-century Jew would mean the Jewish temple in Jerusalem—and demand to be worshiped as a god.
This is related to things the Roman emperors did, such as when Caligula—after he began claiming to be a god—attempted to have an image of himself put in the Jerusalem temple. This plan was narrowly averted.
Since the many Antichrists are identifiable as apostate Christians, the future, individual Antichrist may also be an apostate Christian or from an apostate family, people, or nation (i.e., that used to be Christian but by then will not be).
This is a point of difference between the Antichrist and the original, literal fulfillment of the beast (the early Roman emperors were not apostate Christians). But it is not a hindrance to identifying the future, individual Antichrist with the future man of lawlessness or a future fulfillment of the beast from the sea, since future emperor-like individuals may have a personal, familial, or national Christian background.
The Fathers Weigh In
The Church Fathers displayed significant interest in the Antichrist, whom they commonly identified with the man of lawlessness. They understood him to be a political ruler who would oppose the Church, rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and then demand to be worshiped as a god. At times he was understood to be a person of Jewish ancestry, from the now-lost tribe of Dan.
The details of how Antichrist is to be understood vary from Father to Father, meaning that there is no infallible consensus regarding the matter and some matters are quite speculative. For example, the identification of the Antichrist as coming from the tribe of Dan is extremely slight in Scripture, being based on Genesis 49:17 and on the absence of Dan in the list of tribes in Revelation 7:4–8; the Antichrist is mentioned in neither passage.
Throughout history there have been a large number of individuals who have been identified as potential Antichrists, and such they may have been, though none has been the final persecutor of Church history. The record of inaccurate attempts to identify the Antichrist reveal the extreme caution that needs to be exercised in such matters.
The Catechism explains simply that there will be a “supreme religious deception” before the second coming of Christ and that the supreme form of this deception is that of the Antichrist, who will bring “a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh” (CCC 675).
This deception has precursors in our own time. These precursors appear “every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement” (CCC 676), including “the intrinsically perverse political form of a secular messianism” (ibid.) that was displayed by twentieth-century movements such as Nazism and Communism.
The deception of the Antichrist will lead to the final crisis of the Church, which will be persecuted almost to the point of extinction and thus will “follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection,” only to be saved by the second coming of Christ (CCC 677).
[very large text]The Pope as the Antichrist
It is important for the Catholic apologist to have a good handle on what Scripture does and does not say regarding the Antichrist because the opponents of the Catholic faith have often depicted the pope as the Antichrist.
This was a psychological necessity for the early Protestant leaders because they were in the process of breaking away from what their contemporaries universally recognized as the aut
hentic Church of Christ, governed by the authentic Vicar of Christ. Since breaking with such a body is inconceivable to any one determined to follow Christ’s will, it was necessary for Protestant leaders to deny that the Catholic Church and the pope were these things.The recognition of the Catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong—given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ—that it created severe cognitive dissonance that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. “If it’s not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?” would be logical questions.
Protestant leaders cast about in Scripture for alternative explanations for a large, false religious system expected to exist during the Christian age. They chose the religious system associated with the beast from Revelation, whom they identified as the Antichrist. They further identified this religious system with the Whore of Babylon, who in Revelation is in contrast to the Church, the Bride of Christ.
They thus came to portray the Church as the Whore of Babylon and the pope as the beast/Antichrist. Only in such a way could breaking away from what everyone recognized as the true Church of Christ be psychologically justified.
Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, “The pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).
The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God” (25:6).
The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.
Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.
For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.
Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.
A Crack in the Door
Now that Protestantism has been in a state of separation from the Church for several centuries, psychological pressures have eased, and many Protestants today recognize the absurdity of the papal Antichrist theory and reject those portions of their confessional writings that endorse it.
This praiseworthy recognition provides the Catholic apologist with an opportunity to invite individuals to fundamentally reconsider the Protestant Reformation. If Protestants are prepared to admit that the pope is not the Antichrist and that the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon, then the questions may be posed: “Then what are they? How can they be otherwise explained?”
Most Christians are and always have been members of the Catholic Church. The pope and the Catholic Church are too central to historic Christianity to be dismissed as simply an accident. They must have some part in God’s plan. But if they are not the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon, then the logical alternative is to recognize them as the Vicar of Christ and the Bride of Christ—the very realization that drove the early Reformers to the papal Antichrist theory.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,10:54) The Antichrist By Jimmy Akin
One of the most mysterious figures haunting the Christian imagination is the Antichrist. Innumerable works, both fiction and non-fiction, have been devoted to him. The concept is so compelling that even non-Christians use it. Muslims believe that at the Second Coming of Christ he will do battle with the Antichrist (Arabic, al-Dajjal).
But amid all the speculation about the Antichrist—much of it wild and fanciful—what do we really know about the figure?
Very little.
Four Mentions in Scripture
The Antichrist is mentioned by name in only four verses of Scripture: 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. There are other verses that many people link to the Antichrist, but since he isn’t named in them, the connection is not certain. The four Johanine verses must serve as the core of our knowledge before trying to link other verses to them.
In 1 John 2:18–19, we read, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”
This passage appears to speak of a major individual Antichrist, as well as many minor individual Antichrists, who apparently are apostate Christians for “they went out from us.” The appearance of the individual Antichrist is yet future (“Antichrist is coming”), but the presence of the many Antichrists is a signal that “it is the last hour.”
In 1 John 2:22–23, we read, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
This is consistent with the apostate nature of the many Antichrists, for they have “deny[ied] that Jesus is the Christ” and, in denying the Son, they have implicitly denied the Father. Presumably the same would be true of the individual Antichrist.
1 John 4:1–6 gives practical tests for discerning which spirits bearing revelation are from God and which are not. In John 4:3, we read that “every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”
This shows that the Antichrist movement is inspired by spirits bearing false revelation and that refuse to confess Jesus. This movement had begun in John’s day but would grow afterward.
Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).
Inferring other Antichrists
The four passages given above are all that the New Testament has to say about the Antichrist—at least under that name. But many have identified the Antichrist with the beast from the sea in Revelation 13 or with the “man of lawlessness” that Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
These identifications are reasonable, but must be understood with some nuance. The beast from the sea that John speaks of in Revelation is best understood in its initial, literal fulfillment as one of the early Roman emperors (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2113 on the past fulfillment of this prophecy). Yet, there are often multiple fulfillments of a single prophecy, and the beast may also point forward to an individual at the end of time who will be very much like the early Roman emperors.
Such an individual is easy to identify with Paul’s “man of lawlessness,” for he appears to be a still-future individual who does things like the Roman emperors. Paul states that he will one day manifest himself in the temple of God—which to a first-century Jew would mean the Jewish temple in Jerusalem—and demand to be worshiped as a god.
This is related to things the Roman emperors did, such as when Caligula—after he began claiming to be a god—attempted to have an image of himself put in the Jerusalem temple. This plan was narrowly averted.
Since the many Antichrists are identifiable as apostate Christians, the future, individual Antichrist may also be an apostate Christian or from an apostate family, people, or nation (i.e., that used to be Christian but by then will not be).
This is a point of difference between the Antichrist and the original, literal fulfillment of the beast (the early Roman emperors were not apostate Christians). But it is not a hindrance to identifying the future, individual Antichrist with the future man of lawlessness or a future fulfillment of the beast from the sea, since future emperor-like individuals may have a personal, familial, or national Christian background.
The Fathers Weigh In
The Church Fathers displayed significant interest in the Antichrist, whom they commonly identified with the man of lawlessness. They understood him to be a political ruler who would oppose the Church, rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and then demand to be worshiped as a god. At times he was understood to be a person of Jewish ancestry, from the now-lost tribe of Dan.
The details of how Antichrist is to be understood vary from Father to Father, meaning that there is no infallible consensus regarding the matter and some matters are quite speculative. For example, the identification of the Antichrist as coming from the tribe of Dan is extremely slight in Scripture, being based on Genesis 49:17 and on the absence of Dan in the list of tribes in Revelation 7:4–8; the Antichrist is mentioned in neither passage.
Throughout history there have been a large number of individuals who have been identified as potential Antichrists, and such they may have been, though none has been the final persecutor of Church history. The record of inaccurate attempts to identify the Antichrist reveal the extreme caution that needs to be exercised in such matters.
The Catechism explains simply that there will be a “supreme religious deception” before the second coming of Christ and that the supreme form of this deception is that of the Antichrist, who will bring “a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh” (CCC 675).
This deception has precursors in our own time. These precursors appear “every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement” (CCC 676), including “the intrinsically perverse political form of a secular messianism” (ibid.) that was displayed by twentieth-century movements such as Nazism and Communism.
The deception of the Antichrist will lead to the final crisis of the Church, which will be persecuted almost to the point of extinction and thus will “follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection,” only to be saved by the second coming of Christ (CCC 677).
[very large text]The Pope as the Antichrist
It is important for the Catholic apologist to have a good handle on what Scripture does and does not say regarding the Antichrist because the opponents of the Catholic fai
th have often depicted the pope as the Antichrist.This was a psychological necessity for the early Protestant leaders because they were in the process of breaking away from what their contemporaries universally recognized as the authentic Church of Christ, governed by the authentic Vicar of Christ. Since breaking with such a body is inconceivable to any one determined to follow Christ’s will, it was necessary for Protestant leaders to deny that the Catholic Church and the pope were these things.
The recognition of the Catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong—given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ—that it created severe cognitive dissonance that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. “If it’s not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?” would be logical questions.
Protestant leaders cast about in Scripture for alternative explanations for a large, false religious system expected to exist during the Christian age. They chose the religious system associated with the beast from Revelation, whom they identified as the Antichrist. They further identified this religious system with the Whore of Babylon, who in Revelation is in contrast to the Church, the Bride of Christ.
They thus came to portray the Church as the Whore of Babylon and the pope as the beast/Antichrist. Only in such a way could breaking away from what everyone recognized as the true Church of Christ be psychologically justified.
Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, “The pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).
The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God” (25:6).
The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.
Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.
For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.
Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.
A Crack in the Door
Now that Protestantism has been in a state of separation from the Church for several centuries, psychological pressures have eased, and many Protestants today recognize the absurdity of the papal Antichrist theory and reject those portions of their confessional writings that endorse it.
This praiseworthy recognition provides the Catholic apologist with an opportunity to invite individuals to fundamentally reconsider the Protestant Reformation. If Protestants are prepared to admit that the pope is not the Antichrist and that the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon, then the questions may be posed: “Then what are they? How can they be otherwise explained?”
Most Christians are and always have been members of the Catholic Church. The pope and the Catholic Church are too central to historic Christianity to be dismissed as simply an accident. They must have some part in God’s plan. But if they are not the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon, then the logical alternative is to recognize them as the Vicar of Christ and the Bride of Christ—the very realization that drove the early Reformers to the papal Antichrist theory.
Hi CA:The pope is not the Anti-Christ, but the Catholic church has perverted the Word of God, and that is why she is the Mother of Harlots.
I know that you did not write this article, but an example of this is the following parahraph in this article as a comment to 2 John 7:
Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
[QUOTEThis clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).][/QUOTE]
Why not just let the scripture speak for itself instead of adding “God incarnate” to this. To deny the Father and the Son is anti-christ.
Quote 1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. The scripture states that Jesus is a man. Not just any man, he is as the scriptures state the only begotten Son of the Most High God, but nervertheless, he is a man.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Sep. 18 2009,13:55) Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).
or (4) that Jesus is the uncreated Logos who being in nature and substance, God, humbled Himself and assumed our humanity that He might redeem it in, by and through Himself.So to truly “acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” must include the concept of WHO Jesus Christ is in the first place. If you do not confess that God came in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, you have been deceived by the spirit of antichrist.
Thank God repentance is possible!
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,14:05) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 18 2009,13:55) Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).
or (4) that Jesus is the uncreated Logos who being in nature and substance, God, humbled Himself and assumed our humanity that He might redeem it in, by and through Himself.So to truly “acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” must include the concept of WHO Jesus Christ is in the first place. If you do not confess that God came in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, you have been deceived by the spirit of antichrist.
Thank God repentance is possible!
You say God came in the flesh but at the same time when referring to The Father God did not come in the flesh and regarding The Holy Spirit God did not come in the flesh.So you believe that God did and did not come in the flesh, right?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,10:54) The recognition of the Catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong—given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ—that it created severe cognitive dissonance that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. “If it’s not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?” would be logical questions.
Mystery Babylon.Even John was astonished when he saw it.
Revelation 17:4-10
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 This title was written on her forehead:
MYSTERY
BABYLON THE GREAT
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,14:05) that Jesus is the uncreated Logos who being in nature and substance, God
Being in nature or substance of someone/someone doesn't identify you as that someone.E.g., God is Spirit. He is the one Spirit, (one Spirit, one Faith…).
Yet angels are ministering spirits and they are not God.Therefore being the same kind, doesn't equate as being the same person.
Another example would be Eve. Even was adam (man – mankind), but she wasn't Adam (THE Adam).
So given this, if we partake in divine nature as it is written, then obviously that doesn't actually make us God does it?
Likewise, Jesus being in nature 'theos', and emptying himself and coming in the flesh, (as a man), means that he had divine nature (form of God) and downgraded for a time (so to speak) and took on human nature. It was never meant to be taken as Jesus being God himself or God in identity. For the one true God is the Father and he sent Jesus into the world. It was also God that made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
Seeing Jesus as God himself is not what the scriptures are saying.
God is generous. He even shares his spirit and nature. Participants who are given such, do not become God, but like God. His image.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,16:37) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,10:54) The recognition of the Catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong—given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ—that it created severe cognitive dissonance that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. “If it’s not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?” would be logical questions.
Mystery Babylon.Even John was astonished when he saw it.
Revelation 17:4-10
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 This title was written on her forehead:
MYSTERY
BABYLON THE GREAT
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.
Martin Luther had to do the same thing in his mind regarding the Church that you are doing. The evidence was SO strong in favor of the Church that he literally had to make up a false charge to try to ease his conscience.Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,16:47) Quote Being in nature or substance of someone/someone doesn't identify you as that someone. But it does. You are by nature and substance a man. That is WHAT you are.
Quote E.g., God is Spirit. He is the one Spirit, (one Spirit, one Faith…).
Yet angels are ministering spirits and they are not God.Therefore being the same kind, doesn't equate as being the same person.
Ah…the fallacy of false analogy. You cannot point to something that we share in common with God and put it on the same plane as something that we do not share with God. This won't work. But very sly…albeit fallacious in premise.
The substance we're talking about is God (or Divinity if you like).
Quote Another example would be Eve. Even was adam (man – mankind), but she wasn't Adam (THE Adam). O, but this is an argument in MY favor. Eve was created of the substance of man. Therefore she IS man. A blaring difference we all must admit between man and God is between the created and the uncreated Creator. However, just as Eve was of the nature and substance of Adam, so the Logos is of the nature and substance of the Eternal Father. I don't pretend that this is a perfect analogy. We know that man and woman each have a spirit distinct from the other. But we do read in Scripture:
“But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.” – 1 Cor. 11:11
Quote So given this, if we partake in divine nature as it is written, then obviously that doesn't actually make us God does it? We partake of the Divine nature through Grace, not ontology. In the East we call this divinization or theosis. But you would rather take a family letter (epistle) and try to read it outside of it's context and intended audience: us.
Quote Likewise, Jesus being in nature 'theos', and emptying himself and coming in the flesh, (as a man), means that he had divine nature (form of God) and downgraded for a time You heretics can't help but talk like this every once in a while. Downgraded? It's called humility. We all need to learn it. We've been offered a Master's class.
Quote Seeing Jesus as God himself is not what the scriptures are saying. So you presume to speak with authority as to what the Scriptures are saying? So you would shun the constant teaching of the Church in every age and in all places? You would stand like a Luther and thunder your rebellion, eh? Give me a break.
Remember the rebellion of Korah? You would do well to.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,20:43) But it does. You are by nature and substance a man. That is WHAT you are.
You missed the point.My nature is human. That makes me adam. But I am not Adam.
I am a man/adam, but not the man/adam identified as Adam who was the first man.Even Eve is adam. But she is not Adam.
Christ existed in the FORM of God, not as THE God.
I have yet to meet a Trinitarian who understood the difference between identity and quality/type. Perhaps it is blindness or delusion at work?
Quote O, but this is an argument in MY favor. Eve was created of the substance of man. Therefore she IS man. Not in your favor.
Jesus existed in the form of God or had divine nature and emptied himself and took on human nature/came in the flesh, and then returned to the glory he had with the Father. This however doesn't make him God, just as Eve isn't Adam, but is adam.
Quote [Jesus may have divine nature, but he is not the Most High God. He is the son and logos of the Most High God. Eve may have had human nature, but she wasn't the firstborn Adam.
We partake of the Divine nature through Grace, not ontology. In the East we call this divinization or theosis. But you would rather take a family letter (epistle) and try to read it outside of it's context and intended audience: usHave you not read that we will become like the angels. Have you not also read the following:
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.Hebrews 2:11
Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.1 Corinthians 15:44
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.We will be his brother and in the same family as him, and we will be like him. Sure a big brother, but a brother nevertheless.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,20:43) Ah…the fallacy of false analogy. You cannot point to something that we share in common with God and put it on the same plane as something that we do not share with God. This won't work. But very sly…albeit fallacious in premise. The substance we're talking about is God (or Divinity if you like).
I will let scripture answer.Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.There is nothing above that is a false analogy. So the fallacy charge just went away.
Quote You heretics can't help but talk like this every once in a while. Downgraded? It's called humility. We all need to learn it. We've been offered a Master's class. What? Surely a divine being coming as one lower than the angels is a downgrade in body. It is not meant to be a mean statement. Just a fact. He not only suffered death for all of us and was treated badly, but it was also a sacrifice to come from the highest place and live with us. Yes this is humility and shows God's love for us. Not sure why you are being bitter about this.
Quote So you presume to speak with authority as to what the Scriptures are saying? So you would shun the constant teaching of the Church in every age and in all places? You would stand like a Luther and thunder your rebellion, eh? Give me a break. I shun the falling away, not scripture and the Church. I believe what Paul said.
Acts 20:29
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.Guess what? Paul left us a long time ago. Deceivers and deception have had nearly 2000 years of promotion. Age doesn't make deception truth, rather deception that is old.
2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2009,00:02) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,20:43) But it does. You are by nature and substance a man. That is WHAT you are.
You missed the point.My nature is human. That makes me adam. But I am not Adam.
I am a man/adam, but not the man/adam identified as Adam who was the first man.Even Eve is adam. But she is not Adam.
Christ existed in the FORM of God, not as THE God.
I have yet to meet a Trinitarian who understood the difference between identity and quality/type. Perhaps it is blindness or delusion at work?
OK, let's try again shall we? I didn't miss your point. I just didn't think you had one.Jesus has two natures: God and man. His two natures are united in His one Person. He assumed our humanity. As for Him being the eternal Logos, He is by nature and essence God. There is only ONE God. Thus we confess the distinct person of the Logos while maintaining his “oneness” with God.
The Greek Fathers approached Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology. Think of it as looking at the same thing from a different angle.
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect.
This is entirely different from the Greek emphasis. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.
It is helpful to see how the Holy Spirit worked in the universal Church to teach us.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,14:05) Quote (942767 @ Sep. 18 2009,13:55) Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).
or (4) that Jesus is the uncreated Logos who being in nature and substance, God, humbled Himself and assumed our humanity that He might redeem it in, by and through Himself.So to truly “acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” must include the concept of WHO Jesus Christ is in the first place. If you do not confess that God came in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, you have been deceived by the spirit of antichrist.
Thank God repentance is possible!
Hi CA:I believe what is written in the scriptures that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost (the Spirit of God not a third person) in the womb of the virgin Mary, and God revealed to humanity his identy saying,
Quote Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.And the scriptures state that:
Quote 2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.“To wit, that God was in Christ”. If God was in Christ, then Christ is not God, but God's anointed.
Yes, thank God there is time to repent because judgment day is coming and judgment will begin at the house of God.
The Apostle Paul warns:
Quote 1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.
1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cr 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Cr 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Cr 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.Quote Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her. Quote Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Love in Christ,
MartyI'm sorry for letting you get me off track. We should be talking about the antichrist here. Please see another thread for my continued comments on the topic of the nature and essence of God.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,00:47) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 18 2009,14:05) that Jesus is the uncreated Logos who being in nature and substance, God
Being in nature or substance of someone/someone doesn't identify you as that someone.E.g., God is Spirit. He is the one Spirit, (one Spirit, one Faith…).
Yet angels are ministering spirits and they are not God.Therefore being the same kind, doesn't equate as being the same person.
Another example would be Eve. Even was adam (man – mankind), but she wasn't Adam (THE Adam).
So given this, if we partake in divine nature as it is written, then obviously that doesn't actually make us God does it?
Likewise, Jesus being in nature 'theos', and emptying himself and coming in the flesh, (as a man), means that he had divine nature (form of God) and downgraded for a time (so to speak) and took on human nature. It was never meant to be taken as Jesus being God himself or God in identity. For the one true God is the Father and he sent Jesus into the world. It was also God that made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
Seeing Jesus as God himself is not what the scriptures are saying.
God is generous. He even shares his spirit and nature. Participants who are given such, do not become God, but like God. His image.
t8Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,00:47) Therefore being the same kind, doesn't equate as being the same person. Of course it doesn't and neither does the title “God” identify the person, right?
So your argument is circular.
Now all you have to do is show us how the term “God” being ascribed to Jesus is to be a differenct Kind, eh?
WJ
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 19 2009,10:14) I'm sorry for letting you get me off track. We should be talking about the antichrist here. Please see another thread for my continued comments on the topic of the nature and essence of God.
Hi CA:OK, the Anti-Christ is not the pope, but is someone who denies the Father and the Son.
And, he will set himself up in the temple showing himself to be God.
And everyone living at the time of his appearing who does not believe the Father and the Son will be deceived, and will worship him.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2009,10:54) t8 Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,00:47) Therefore being the same kind, doesn't equate as being the same person. Of course it doesn't and neither does the title “God” identify the person, right?
So your argument is circular.
Now all you have to do is show us how the term “God” being ascribed to Jesus is to be a differenct Kind, eh?
WJ
God is prescribed to a particular person, that of the Father. That is why when you read the word God, if you replace it with the word “Trinity” it breaks the scripture and when you replace it with the word “Father” it stays true.E.g.,”For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…”
Try that with the word Trinity and see how you go. Try it with the word “Father” and see the beautiful truth.
In only some instances is the word “theos” used of others, but the context shows that it is not the Most High God being spoken of, but a man, angel, idol, Satan, etc.
And God is actually identified as the Father specifically.
I can supply 12 scriptures for now, hopefully it will enough to convince you of the wonderful truth that the Father is the only true God and the Father of Jesus and us.- I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him bette
- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
- Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
- so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,
- Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
- No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
- No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
- yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
- Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
- Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
- Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Oops. Apologies. I just realised this post is about the antichrist. I will post my reply above to the appropriate conversation.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,19:14) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2009,10:54) t8
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,00:47) Therefore being the same kind, doesn't equate as being the same person.
Of course it doesn't and neither does the title “God” identify the person, right?So your argument is circular.
Now all you have to do is show us how the term “God” being ascribed to Jesus is to be a differenct Kind, eh?
WJ
God is prescribed to a particular person, that of the Father. That is why when you read the word God, if you replace it with the word “Trinity” it breaks the scripture and when you replace it with the word “Father” it stays true.E.g.,”For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…”
Try that with the word Trinity and see how you go. Try it with the word “Father” and see the beautiful truth.
In only some instances is the word “theos” used of others, but the context shows that it is not the Most High God being spoken of, but a man, angel, idol, Satan, etc.
And God is actually identified as the Father specifically.
I can supply 12 scriptures for now, hopefully it will enough to convince you of the wonderful truth that the Father is the only true God and the Father of Jesus and us.- I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him bette
- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
- Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
- so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,
- Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
- No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
- No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
- yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
- Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
- Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
- Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
t8Dance the dance!
You didn't show me how the term God being applied to Jesus means he is a different kind. What you did say is…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2009,10:54) God is prescribed to a particular person, that of the Father.
Your statement seems to imply that the word “God” does not apply to Jesus at all.
And you are still playing those silly word games by adding to the scriptures words that do not belong there, and then worst trying to prove a point by doing so!
t8, are you still under the impression that one scripture or a handfull of scriptures negate others?
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 18 2009,19:20) Oops. Apologies. I just realised this post is about the antichrist. I will post my reply above to the appropriate conversation.
t8Same here!
WJ
That was really cool of you guys to move the Trinity discussion elsewhere. Thanks so much.
On the Antichrist note…I thought this was a very interesting point:
The Pope as the Antichrist
It is important for the Catholic apologist to have a good handle on what Scripture does and does not say regarding the Antichrist because the opponents of the Catholic faith have often depicted the pope as the Antichrist.
This was a psychological necessity for the early Protestant leaders because they were in the process of breaking away from what their contemporaries universally recognized as the authentic Church of Christ, governed by the authentic Vicar of Christ. Since breaking with such a body is inconceivable to any one determined to follow Christ’s will, it was necessary for Protestant leaders to deny that the Catholic Church and the pope were these things.
The recognition of the Catholic Church as the one Christ established was so strong—given its centuries of existence, its ubiquity in Europe, and the absence of any plausible rival in tracing its roots back to Christ—that it created severe cognitive dissonance that Protestant leaders had to find ways to overcome. “If it’s not the Bride of Christ then what is it? How can it be explained otherwise?” would be logical questions.
Protestant leaders cast about in Scripture for alternative explanations for a large, false religious system expected to exist during the Christian age. They chose the religious system associated with the beast from Revelation, whom they identified as the Antichrist. They further identified this religious system with the Whore of Babylon, who in Revelation is in contrast to the Church, the Bride of Christ.
They thus came to portray the Church as the Whore of Babylon and the pope as the beast/Antichrist. Only in such a way could breaking away from what everyone recognized as the true Church of Christ be psychologically justified.
Not much to speculate about. It says pretty clearly…..
In 1 John 2:22–23, we read, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
THIS IS THE ANTICHRIST, HE WHO DENIES THE FATHER AND THE SON. TWO. Not Jesus the Father, or God the Son or any nonsense like that. HE WHO DENIES THE FATHER AND THE SON. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is the heavenly Father. They are as one but they are not the same. If you deny that Jesus was a man who came in the flesh to die for our sins, you are antichrist. It was not God who died for our sins, it was Jesus the man, conceived by the Holy Spirit but a man just like us. Not God in the flesh. He represented God, just as a salesman represents the boss of his company. He spoke for him, he obeyed him, he was the face of the company to whoever he spoke to, but he was not the Boss. He was a representative of the Boss.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
