By Cris D. Putnam
I just listened to a “back and forth” on Issues Etc. a Lutheran radio show that I generally like for its discussion of apologetics and theology. They had Dr. Thomas Ice on talking about “Rapture Theology” and then a follow up response by Dr Kim Riddlebarger Responding to Dr Thomas Ice’s Rapture Theology. While I identify as a progressive dispensationalist, I do not really want to debate the timing of the rapture rather the strawman representation of premillennialism and complete white washing of classic Lutheran eschatology displayed by the host of Issues Etc. and Riddlebarger. One of the major objections to dispensationalism was that it was relatively new development of the nineteenth century whereas the Amillennial view was the classic protestant view. This is a drastic oversimplification of the Lutheran and Reformed positions.
In truth, Historicism was a foundational interpretation of Protestantism and it is perplexing that it is so flippantly forgotten. They completely ignore the subversion of Biblical doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church and the fact that many early Fathers were Premillennial. Even worse, the host and Riddlebarger made sport of premillennialists for speculating on current events in Israel as prophetically significant while ignoring the Historicist view (see p1 p2 p3 ) of the reformed tradition’s tendency to do the same. In fact, far from demuring to speak to current events, classic Protestantism has affirmed that the Great Tribulation as an ongoing reality along with the judgements of the book of Revelation. In the recent past Protestants did not speculate about the identity of Antichrist, they claimed sure knowledge. It is in all of the creeds!
Despite political correctness and its nearly forgotten status in modern evangelicalism, almost all of the original protestant confessions affirm that the papacy is antichrist. For example, The Second Scotch Confession of AD 1580 states:
And theirfoir we abhorre and detest all contrare Religion and Doctrine; but chiefly all kynde of Papistrie in generall and particular headis, even as they ar now damned and confuted by the word of God and kirk of Scotland. But in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authoritie of that Romane Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civill Magistrate, and consciences of men.[1]
Similarly, The Westminster Confession of Faith does not mince words concerning the papacy:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[2]
This statement was repeated virtually verbatim in the Baptist Confession of 1688, otherwise known as the Philadelphia Confession. It was the most generally accepted confession of the Regular or Calvinistic Baptists in England and in the American south. The Westminster confession is still widely used today.
While many modern Lutherans seek to distance themselves from it, The Book of Concord still contains the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Primacy of the Pope. Accordingly, many orthodox Lutherans still affirm the veracity of those documents. However, in the 1860s the Iowa Synod refused to grant doctrinal status to the teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist. They listed this teaching under the category of “open questions.” The Iowa Synod later became part of the American Lutheran Church, and its teaching on the Antichrist persisted in the new union. Since 1930, the ALC taught that it is only a “historical judgment” that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In 1938, this view was officially sanctioned in the ALC “Sandusky Declaration.” It stated:
We accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles…that the Pope is the Antichrist…because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy…
The answer to the question whether in the future that is still before us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and a personal concentration of the antichristian power already present now, and thus a still more comprehensive fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2 may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of Church and world history.[3]
In a sharp rebuttal, the Missouri Synod’s “Brief Statement” of 1932 renounced the teaching that the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist is only a historical judgment. It professed, “The prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist…have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” It subscribed, “to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is ‘the very Antichrist.’” It argued that the doctrine of Antichrist is “not to be included in the number of open questions.”[4] However, their position has softened since.
In 1951, the Report of the Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod stated:
Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy). We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as we do. If there were a clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so. Therefore the quotation from Lehre und Wehre [in 1904 by Dr. Stoeckhardt which identifies the Papacy as Antichrist] goes too far.[5]
This view was endorsed at the Missouri Synod Convention in Houston in 1953. Even so, many still struggle with their traditions. A Lutheran scholar, Charles Arand, wrote an article to help contemporary Lutheran’s deal with the cognitive dissonance they feel when they want to applaud the pope’s position against abortion and other moral issues. While he never denies the classic Lutheran position, he claims, “The identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in the Confessions takes place in an apocalyptic climate in which the Reformers also considered other candidates for the title of Antichrist, the most prominent of which were the Turks (Ap XV, 18).”[6] The text he refers to is this one: “For the kingdom of the Antichrist is a new kind of worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ, just as the kingdom of Mohammed has religious rites and works, through which it seeks to be justified before God.”[7]
Indeed, one could infer a Muslim antichrist from this one statement. But, in truth, his use of this reference is obfuscation because the very next sentences in Apology of the Augsburg Confession XV, 18 say:
It does not hold that people are freely justified by faith on account of Christ. So also the papacy will be a part of the kingdom of the Antichrist if it defends human rites as justifying. For they deprive Christ of his honor when they teach that we are not freely justified on account of Christ through faith but through such rites, and especially when they teach that such rites are not only useful for justification but even necessary.[8]
This issue of elevating their rites above the salvific power of the Gospel has never been recanted by the Church of Rome. He goes on to argue that as part of the “already but not yet” paradigm, the papacy was a manifestation of Antichrist during the time of the reformation but not necessarily the ultimate one. Nevertheless, this confession clearly says they will be a part of Antichrist’s kingdom. He maintains to be dogmatic that the papacy is the only antichrist precludes awareness and vigilance toward new manifestations, yet to relativize the confessions as only historical is equally an error.[9] So contrary to views expressed on the recent Issues Etc, dispensationlism did not amend their anemic modernized view rather hard-line Historicism.
It is a demonstrable historical fact that every notable protestant theologian of the 16 -19th century, regardless of denomination, believed and taught that the papacy was antichrist.
For a cogent Defense of premillennialism I recommend John MacArthur’s series here.
[1] The Second Scotch Confession in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III (Joseph Kreifels), 349.
[2] Morton H. Smith, Westminster Confession of Faith (Greenville SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press, 1996), 2.
[3] “Statement on the Antichrist,” Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, last accessed January 18, 2011, http://www.wels.net/about-wels/doctrinal-statements/antichrist?page=0,1.
[4] Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
[6] Charles P. Arand, “Antichrist: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy,” Concordia Journal (October 2003), 402.
[7] Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession XV,18 in Robert Kolb, Timothy J. Wengert and Charles P. Arand, The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 225.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Charles P. Arand “Antichrist: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy,” 403.
About Cris Putnam
The idea that dispensationalism is ‘relatively new’ is irrelevant, even if it were true. It’s not uncommon to have that claim thrown around but I’m not sure how that makes an argument.
Chris,
Dr. Ice made the point that the reformers were so concerned with soteriology that they didn’t get around to correcting eschatology, that occurred later with Darby et al. But Ice and Riddlebarger are both glossing over the fact that the refomers did have a developed eschatology which was even more dependent on contemporary events – Historicism! Dispensationlism displaced Historicism after a string of failed date setting. Yet Riddlebarger and the host of issues etc poke fun a dispensationlists who are actually a lot more coherent and biblical in their speculations. Then they argue along the lines of “if eschatology wasn’t correct until the 19th century, then how do we know it is correct now.” We don’t really… but if they mean to imply their views are the classic protestant views, then they are wrong. As if the views of Rome in 15th – 16th century are what they still hold today? Obviously not! I just showed the 20th century debate within Lutheranism over their foundational creeds. The arguments against dispensationalism on Issues Etc are really pretty astonishingly incoherent.
Darby – Scofield – Dispensationalism, is very important (earliest perhaps not so), but important because their theory is based upon error’s.
First, the Latin ‘Millennium’ is a Latin translated from a Greek numeric ‘Chilioi’, that scholar and theologian agree found in earliest manuscript of II Peter 3:8 and Revelation 20:1-7.
Next and also important, Chilioi is derived from the Greek math theorem base-10, as 10x3rd power, as such represents the multiple (unit) of plural ‘Thousands’ (tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.).
Unusual, is that ‘Chilioi’ is found without included (or) additional numeric to represent the sum within Thousands only eight times in the entire New Testament. These eight unusual times used singularly (alone) found 6-times in Revelation chapter-20, and the remaining 2-times in II Peter 3:8. This can be verified by reading the original Greek where this ‘Chilioi’ is found.
Understand some using English grammar in translation, truncate plural ‘Chilioi’ as ‘a’ or ‘one’ (singular) thousand. The truth is that ‘a” (nor) ‘one’ is found nowhere within Rev 20:1-7. Also, the Greek pronounced (plural) Chilioi as “Thousands”, so in Rev 20:1-7 the two-events of Chilioi are describing plural “Thousands Years”, that in English should be translated “Thousands of Years”.
Don’t become frightened, the saints raised (resurrected aka Born Again) reign with Christ forever, spiritually ‘within’ the remainder of this earthage of as yet undetermined thousands, and in the age to come for eternity.
For an in depth study and research into the Greek Chilioi and Chilias, click on link to my web page.
Chris this is all so interesting. I have been doing some resurch on Constentine after all he was where the papacey began. I have come to the conclusion that he fulfills Rev 17: in that Constentine was the 7th king the one yet to come, not the 8th. He did so much to harm christanity all as history gives him credit for spreading it. Please look at Dan 8:24-25 and let me know what you think. Thankyou Jon
Jon,
Actually Constantine was a Pontifex Maximus, high priest of the pagan Roman Empire, but he was not the pope who was the bishop of Rome. Pope Miltiades 313 – 314 and then Sylvester. see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm The papacy as universal bishop over the church did not even exist until after AD 606. However, Constantine does prefigure later developments in the papacy especially the conflation of political power with the church. That occurred in AD 756 with the fraudulent acquisition of the papal states by means of a forged document known infamously as the “Donation of Constantine” and marked the beginning of the Dark Ages.
Jon
You just reminded me of another point concerning the Latin Millennium, translated in 382AD when Pope Damasus had his secretary Jerome translate the original Hebrew and Greek into a Latin Vulgate.
The Catholic church that began this ‘Millennium’ word from the Greek numeric ‘Chilioi’, say that Christ’s Kingdom began with His ministry, and the saints reign now with Christ on earth (spiritually), and in the age to come for eternity. Isn’t it something,that the body that began this Millennium, today see many versions of some wanting to rule over others.
The fact still remains that the current pope holds title of Pontifex Maximus linking him to Constentine the great. The “mystery of iniquity” has a lineage back to Apostles day 2Thes2:7
That lineage must be taken into consideration because it is the development of this mystery that issues in the great Apostasy of the end-Time (a falling away from the Faith) revealing The “Son of perdition” 2Thes2:3 to be at it’s centrality.
“Son of perdition” is the KJ application defining this “Apostate figure”at the final stages of the Mystery of iniquity.
Indeed we understand the definition of what an “Apostate” is as it relates to the falling away
it is not so much a falling away from Catholicism, protestantism, or any form of creed, but rather it is a falling away from the Foundational doctrines of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.
Apostle John said it would be so; “They went out from us, but were not of us” 1Jn2:19
He was referring to Antichrists in the prelude of one Antichrist which was to come in the last hour Vs18.
One could say that Apostle John also had this concept of the Mystery of iniquity.. A Mystery using Apostates within the Ranks of Apostolic foundation to deny the faith of Jesus Christ just like unto that other Son of perdition “Judas Iscariot” who denied His Master.
Blessing all
john B
Dr. Riddlebarger was absolutely great on inerrancy as one of my profs at Simon Greenleaf, so valuable to the Body of Christ– his detailed analysis of Scripture presented a solid, Biblical foundation for all my work in the field since. He so honors the Word of God as what it is: theopneustos, that he should not be downgraded on a public site for opinion on endtimes which are non-heretical opinions.
Sometimes we have to choose our battles, and I believe it is of greater priority to win the understanding of inerrancy for the Church, than namecall wonderful men such as Riddlebarger as “whitewashing.” Let them have their differing views, let people with differing millenial perspectives tune in, and let the seeds be planted and watered as he intersperses endtimes with the doctrines on the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Let the differences bring in the audience, rather than discredit the speaker. We are to handle all issues graciously, and this admittedly is hard to do, but for Dr. Riddlebarger it should be easy–he is a wonderful bother, and deserves our respect.
truthster1,
Your personal affections are not really germane to the facts. Dr Riddelbarger has written several books on end times prophecy. He writes much about it on his blog as well. First, I like him and respect him. I have his book on the Antichrist, it has some good information. That being said I still disagree with him on many issues. He is quite vocal in his criticisms of premillennial dispensationalists (like Norman Geisler for one) who also strongly believe in inerrancy. The host and he were taking shots at others eschatology and yes they really white washed history given the classic Lutheran position, I proved that above.
I really don’t see why you are bringing inerrancy into it. It’s a non sequitur to argue “he believes in inerrancy so you shouldn’t respond when he critizes your eschatology” How does that follow? He went on a public radio show and criticized Dr Ice’s views, some of which I share, so turn about is fair play. I think Riddlebarger’s position on prophecy actually undermines inerrancy because of the unnecessary and forced allegorical hermeneutic employed. Nobody is calling him a heretic, but the radio show in question certainly did whitewash the history of protestant theology. I find it extremely suspect that 300 years of reformed protestant theology and Bible commentary are brushed under the rug. They never mentioned historicism. Lutherans and Reformed taught the historicist interpretation when dispensationalism began. They gave the impression their current view had been consistently held. That was a white wash.
“It does not hold that people are freely justified by faith on account of Christ. So also the papacy will be a part of the kingdom of the Antichrist if it defends human rites as justifying. For they deprive Christ of his honor when they teach that we are not freely justified on account of Christ through faith but through such rites, and especially when they teach that such rites are not only useful for justification but even necessary”
That about sums it up, doesn’t it?
I guess for me, it wouldn’t even really matter what the majority of Protestant theologians have said or believed, the unbiblical essence of Rome is counter to the gospel, and so very much part of the spirit of Antichrist, regardless of whether Christians outside of Catholicism have historically recognized it, and regardless of whether the Papacy is to eventually become the seat of the “capital A” anti-christ…
The classic protestant view of Antichrist is that He is a religious figure.. In opposition to this the dispensational view of Antichrist is that he is a political figure..I can reconcile both in the papacy!
If it be true that the Apostasy is in conjunction with the working of the mystery of iniquity, and it has been at work for centuries now.. Would it not also be true to expect an increase in false doctrine to flood the christian arena?Has protestantism really thrust out papal heresy? is dispensationalism the hero of truth?
I am not against theology as such; but sometimes a spark of ‘revealed truth’ sheds more light than age old institutions.
So many Christians sit in the comfort of their elevated masters soaking up what they perceive to be knowledge.. Now Luther had a spark of revealed truth ‘by grace through faith’ So called reformed Men have take that spark and expanded it beyond truth where it is taught that God predestines to Hell the none elect.. on the other hand we are told by dispensationalist that God is going to save those in unbelief at His coming.. you all know what i mean now!
john B
I do so appreciate verse that appears giving Gods view of predestination, thankfully unlike judge not, perhaps often misunderstood. Declaring God first foresees, and as He sees, He then predestines… and the script is completed.
Hi John B. – I’d definitely agree there is an increase of false doctrine within the “christian arena”, but I’d have to say that it goes far beyond the confines of papal heresy…
Strangerthanfiction; Far beyond the confines of papal heresy is indeed the reality.. that is why there is such a flux of denominational net-works all professing a Christ of their own flavour..
We are living in perilous times 2Tim3:1 where “evil men and impostors proceed from bad to worse, ‘Deceiving’ and being Deceived” 2Tim3:13
I had always taught that this prophetic passage of 2Tim3 was about the condition of the world in the last Days.. Alas! it is not…. It is about the christian arena wherein the Apostles doctrinal foundation is being slaughtered… The impostors abound just as Apostle said that they would… The voices of deceit are to the right and to the left tightening their grip upon careless souls “always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”..
We all need to take Apostle Paul’s advise to young Timothy and continue in the things taught by the Apostles vs14.
Blessings in the Name of Jesus
john B
Hi Chris, notice you mentioned above that there were early church fathers who were premillenialists, could you provide some names of such so that I can go and research it myself, not doubting your word, but would like to see for myself as I have never heard that before.
Rusty,
I believe it was the dominate opinion of the early church. Here is an excerpt from Geisler’s Systematic theology which quotes several early Fathers original writings as evidence:
It is a quandary, that many believe strongly false teaching and prophecy, now exists within the church. Such as theology from the Latin Millennium, quoting study of early scholar and theologian, ending in relatively nothing but speculation concerning the author.
Why isn’t it important in theology, that neither Christ nor His apostle’s spoke a word about such an important Millennium event’s. Why is not important the original Greek numeric was ‘Chilio’, a numeric expressed in Johns time as plural thousands.
Am I to conclude that nothing the scholar or theologian has said was to be taken literally, why yes in fact, this is exactly what the word admonishes. But what if much of my English bible is translation from the Latin Vulgate, was the original Hebrew and Greek fallible… it does look this way. So what do I make of verse saying the word is inerrant, or spiritually discerned… so far I am leaning heavily on God, and not on man.
Rusty; I am interjecting here and i hope that Cris does not mind.. the only early church father that I am aware of as being Premill is Origen AD 250, and his view is based only on what he believed to be a ‘literal 1000 years’ of the reign of Christ upon this present earth…. it is not the dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield, Woolford, Linsay, Haggi, Hinn, Marzulli ect…………………..
Let it be known that Origen underwent genitalia castration making himself a Eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom… This extremity on his behalf was based on the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus found in the Gospel of Mat19:12.. So be it!
Some of his views were repudiated by the church.. Ex: universal salvation and the pre-existence of the soul are among them.
john B
If Ogden accepted the Greek manuscript, and concerning this Greek numeric Chilioi, as most scholar and theologian agree Chilioi found in earliest manuscript of Rev-20, Ogden then agreed in a literal plural ‘thousands years’. When expressed (in English) as “a” or ‘one’ (singular) “thousand years”, error is noted proved within the original Greek, there is found no ‘a’ or ‘one’ to support their statement. Salvation is a promise old and new, salvation arrived as the Christ, and for those ‘waiting for (Him)’.
Hi Cris I will just make some relevant comment:
There is no doubt that Abraham’s Eternal inheritance was foreshadowed in the land of promise Heb11:10
The scripture tells us that there, he and his descendants lived by Faith.. A faith which opened Abraham’s vision beyond the horizon of this geographical location of the Land..
“For he was looking for the City which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” Heb11:10
“And i saw a New heaven and a new Earth; for the first heaven and the first Earth passed away……..and I saw the Holy City, New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God” Rev21:2,3
Apostle Peter said; “But according to His promise we are looking for New heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells. therefore, beloved, Since You Look For These Things”… 2Pet3:13,14
I reckon that “Clement of Rome” had it right when he said (He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [cometh]… Rightly so! The reference is to the “Day of the Lord 2Pet3:10 in which the Heavens will pass away and the elements be destroyed by fire”
We, therefore, as Christians have the same Promise, Faith and Vision like unto Abraham. (The eternal City being the objective of our faith)
Concerning Irenaeus on the drinking of New wine…
According to Apostle Paul; There is a difference between the Kingdom of Christ and that of the Father.. Presently, all believers have been translated out of the Kingdom of Darkness into the kingdom of the beloved Son Col1:13
“For He Must reign until he has put all His enemies under His feet….and when all things are subjected to Him The Son also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, That God may be all in all” 1Cor15:25-28.. We are told in Vs24 that “then comes the end when He Jesus delivers the Kingdom to the Father”… 1Cor15:24
It is then that we will drink of the new wine in the Kingdom of the Father Mat26:29
Rightly so; Jesus referring to this drinking taking place in “My father’s kingdom” therein, is the difference we do not drink it in a dispensationalist restored Jewish kingdom of a1000 years.. but we drink it a new in the New Earth of promise.. what we do drink in this present kingdom at hand is the cup of blessing in remembrance of his sufferings foreshadowing the Eternal things to come.. for indeed we drink it until he comes again. 1Cor11:26
john B
Spot on with this write-up, I honestly feel this website needs a lot more attention. I’ll
probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!