After Loehe’s Freimund of January 15 of this year [1874] rejected another (erroneous) doctrine of the Antichrist, he continues:
“But there is another interpretation of the Antichrist, which is found even more frequently; that is the interpretation that the Antichrist is nothing other than the Pope. This interpretation was general during the Reformation, Luther often and most forcefully expressed it, and it has even passed into our confessional writings.... Such an opinion is not in accordance with Scripture and is not in harmony with the truth. We think it understandable that at the time of the Reformation, when the antagonisms were strained to the utmost, one wanted to find in the Pope the Antichrist himself — one wanted to confess the truth that there is much anti-Christianity in the papacy; but we think it is contrary to Scripture if even today one calls the Pope ‘the Antichrist himself’. He who loves the Scriptures and pays attention to the prophetic Word should beware of such an outmoded delusion, which can no longer be offered to the people in our time.” —
It is true, it is frightening that men who want to be regarded as Lutherans loyal to the confession can speak so shamefully of a part of our confession; but, as I said, we must be glad that the Lutherans, at least in Germany, no longer want to “play under the little hat,” as Luther used to express it, but honestly speak out their rejection of a clear piece of the Confession. It is easier to fight with such honest enemies than with false brethren who think just that way, but give themselves a better appearance and, while they teach the opposite of the symbolic doctrine, pretend to hold it firmly. Those brazen contradictors [i.e. Loehe] do by far not cause as much damage and not as much confusion in the church as those who are intent only on making the water turbid in order to then be able to cast the angles of their false doctrines out at the poor souls.
By the way, the latest omission of the Loeheans in Germany about the doctrine of the Antichrist is also of value because they bear witness to the importance of this doctrine. In the number of their Freimund shown here, they write, among other things, as follows:
“The Lord does not come unless the man of sin has been revealed first – so writes the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess. 2, thus giving us a mark that we do not deceive ourselves as if ‘the day of Christ is present’, but know how to pay attention to the signs of the times with a sober eye. The future of Christ presupposes the future of the Antichrist, the coming of the Lord must be preceded by the coming of the last (?) enemy, of the ‘adversary’, and whoever speaks of the coming of the Lord without focusing on the anti-Christian, follows his own thoughts and does not pay attention to the apostolic word, which gives us the appearance of the anti-Christian as a mark for the appearance of Christ. Should we not be under the illusion that it is unnecessary for us and our congregations to know anything more about the Antichrist and his future? Or do we no longer know how Paul held it in Thessalonica? The Apostle stayed here only for a short time, and if we take a closer look at 2 Thessalonians 2, we hear that the Apostle talked about the Antichrist a lot and in detail during this short time, that he interpreted the prophet Daniel, about whom so many do not want to know anything anymore, to the young Christians and suggested it to them, that he taught this young congregation in many matters completely different than it is common practice today. The Apostle Paul, who wrote the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians, certainly placed the core and star of Scripture, Jesus Christ crucified and righteousness in Him, above all else; but the same Apostle also spoke to this young Christian congregation about the Antichrist and his future, as well as about Christ's kingdom and His appearing, in such a way that we should seriously consider whether we do not also have to learn from the Apostle in this matter.”
It is clear from this that the Loeheans in Germany declare the doctrine of the Antichrist to be so important only because they want to use this doctrine for their millennialism; but it is nevertheless of some value that they also confess that this doctrine is by no means such a minor side doctrine as so many now make themselves believe. For if their false doctrine of the Antichrist is so important to the Millennialists, how important our pure doctrine of it must be to us Lutherans! How important it is either to remain with the doctrine of our symbols in this point, or to depart from it! There is no doubt that also with regard to this doctrine, which was opened up and given to us by the Reformation and laid down in the precious confession of our Church, the call of Christ applies to us Lutherans: “Hold fast what you have, lest anyone take your crown.” Rev. 3:11. W. [Walther]
__________________
*) ^ See: Loehe's writing: Our Church Situation. Nördlingen 1850. p. 60.
**) ^ See: Oeffentliches Colloquium 2c. Milwaukee, 1868. p. 24.
†) ^ See: Oeffentliches Colloquium 2c., p. 31.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I recall in my youth that this very issue was in controversy decades ago within the LCMS"
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't controversial in my youth decades ago, where the pope being the Antichrist was plainly taught in my LCMS confirmation class. I even wrote a paper about it in my HS English class (fortunately the teacher was not a Roman Catholic).
"Carl Vehse":
ReplyDeleteThanks for your report of your training. It was good hear. My experience was largely the same, being taught as you were in confirmation class, in a small town LCMS congregation. However, in my later youth, questions by those of the "Walkout" crowd began to be heard -- in my later teenage years.
Your comment here negates the need for your "because popes change with time" explanation in your comment of Part 2. It was *self-evident* to me in my youth that the term "the Pope" in the Confessions always meant the office of the papacy in general *and* the individual currently occupying that office in particular. Ratzinger is no longer "the Pope" for he retired from the office.
The Smalcald Articles need no explanation -- "the Pope" means what it says. Everyone will answer the question: "Who is the Pope?" with "Pope Francis."