Papacy man of sin?

[christopher]

Ok, as promised, and picking up the discussion Josh and I had this weekend regarding this question and others related to the RCC, here are the quotes I’ve seen from Popes claiming to be God on earth. (Note all quotes come from Revelation: Four views by Steve Gregg who gave various historicist authors as his sources):

Pope Nicholas:
"The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one….I have the authority of the King of Kings, I am all in all and above all… Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man but God, what can you make me but God?…Wherefore no marvel if it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter to put up his sword and admonishes his disciples not to use any outward force in revenging themselves, so do not I, Pope Nicolaus, writing to the bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords?…I conclude, commanding, declaring, and pronouncing, to stand upon necessity of salvation, for every creature to be subject to me.”

Pope Leo XIII (Apostolic letter of June 20, 1894):
“We hold the place of Almighty God on earth”

Pius X:
“The Pope…is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”

Pius XI (April 30, 1922):
“You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.”

.[/i]

Now, almost all of the reformers identified the Pope as the 2Thes2 man of sin, and likewise many of the Anti-Nicene fathers saw these as coming up out of the then present Roman empire, as do I.

2 Thess 2:3-5
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
NKJV

And the “little horn” in Daniel.

Dan 7:7-8
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.
NKJV


Dan 7:19-25
19 "Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; 20 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows. 21 I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

23 "Thus he said:

'The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.
NKJV

Now, an interesting comparison here (in case you didn’t notice) was the highlighted part above and this phrase from Nicholas:

“Wherefore no marvel if it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ”

Also noteworthy IMO, is that this kingdom is said to be "different from the first ones". It can be argued that the RCC, though not a formal "kingdom" per se, how greater power than all the kingdoms in Europe during the middle ages because of the threat of interdict (witholding the Eucharist and thus salvation itself according to RCC doctrine).

Thoughts?

[Josh]

Thoughts

Yes. Many. But let's start somewhere.

Also noteworthy IMO, is that this kingdom is said to be "different from the first ones". It can be argued that the RCC, though not a formal "kingdom" per se, how greater power than all the kingdoms in Europe during the middle ages because of the threat of interdict (witholding the Eucharist and thus salvation itself according to RCC doctrine).

First off, the kingdom that is said to be different from the first ones in Daniel 7:23 is very clearly Rome itself, the fourth kingdom. In Daniel's dreams there are four kingdoms to come, starting with the empire dominant in Daniel's day (I know this is familiar, but bear with me)

a) Babylonians
b) Medes and Persians
c) Greeks
d) Romans

The reason it's said to be different is that it's a conglomeration of many different kingdoms under central emperial control.

It doesn't make sense to skip Rome and postulate the RCC as the fourth one, except if you're considering the RCC an extension of the Roman empire. However, you didn't state that, so I'm a bit confused. Don't you see the Roman empire as the fourth kingdom? Anyway, I don't think an extension makes any sense based on the following:

So, these 10 horns/ kings from the fourth kingdom (Rome) are important to identify. Fortunately, Revelation helps us identify them by giving us an event in history by which to date them:

Revelation 17: 12-18

The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."

Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

Here, these ten kings, in collusion with one of the 7 kings of Rev. 17:9-11 [Romans emperors, though you may need that established] will make war on the Lamb at about the same time that they destroy the prosititute.

One huge premise I'm going to assume temporarily is that the prostitute of Revelation is none other than apostate priestly national Israel. I can expound this elsewhere if that's debated.

Anyway, if the prostitute is national, priestly, apostate Israel and the city that "rules the earth" is Jerusalem, which will be ruined and burnt, "according to God's word"*, then the timing for these 10 kings is the Jewish War of 66-70 AD and the roughly simultaneous Neronian persecution of the Church (making war on the Lamb).

If these premises hold, then it doesn't make sense to apply this passage to something centuries later just because of one parallel (boastful words about set times), especially when the prostitute (apostate national Israel) did change the set laws and met all the other criteria.

So, let me know if I need to establish the identity of the Prostitute of Revelation more solidly.


*btw, very little in Scripture is ever said about the fall of Rome; tons of passages speak to the ruin of second-temple Jerusalem.

[christopher]

It's about time you answered me on this...what's it been? Like a month? ;D ;D

It doesn't make sense to skip Rome and postulate the RCC as the fourth one, except if you're considering the RCC an extension of the Roman empire. However, you didn't state that, so I'm a bit confused. Don't you see the Roman empire as the fourth kingdom?

Point well taken. I do indeed see the fourth kingdom as Rome. You got me on that one. So you can strike my last point on that post from the record.

However, that kingdom is said to have the 10 horns and the little horn (which was the main point of the argument) arising out of it. I think that little horn can quite easily and naturally be seen as the RCC arising out of the Roman empire and the description in vss 24-25 fit describe the RCC quite well IMO.

Your example in Revelation is a good one, but I don't see the need (or even the basis) for this passage to be describing the exact same thing as what Daniel is describing. John (or should I say Jesus?) borrowed much of the imagery found in the OT and used it the same way in Revelation (and elsewhere in His discourses). I think that was intentional for effect. The Jews would instantly recognize the parallel. That doesn't mean they are necessarily talking about the same thing, just the same type of thing. For example: The Exodus is one of the more prominent allusions in Revelation, but we wouldn't say they are the same event. The Revelation may well be describing what you suggested, but it need not follow that the Daniel passage is talking about the same thing.

you wrote:

One huge premise I'm going to assume temporarily is that the prostitute of Revelation is none other than apostate priestly national Israel. I can expound this elsewhere if that's debated.

No need (unless for the benefit of other readers), I'm with you on that one.

*btw, very little in Scripture is ever said about the fall of Rome; tons of passages speak to the ruin of second-temple Jerusalem.

Another great point. But I would say that the kingdom of God is now revealed in the church rather than national Israel (I know you would also) and that is significant enough for the prophets to predict some things about, isn't it? There is precedent for that in scripture, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, your counter-arguments are good. But to my mind, the force of the arguments I've laid out still steer me in the direction of the papacy being the man of sin and the little horn in Daniel. It fits all too well IMO, frighteningly well.

But hey, I'm not married to my view, so perhaps you can persuade me otherwise. Keep on it man. Change my mind

[Josh]

Okay, little horn then...

Hmm, I think the best way to proceed would be to make a couple more points from Daniel 7.

BTW, though I agree that John uses references to OT prophecy in many ways, it seems to me that the more technical the language, the more directly he's pointing us to a literal, singular fulfillment of an OT prophecy. Perhaps I can come up with more examples of this, but i haven't had my coffee today yet.

OK, so I've got some thoughts about the little horn based on the way Daniel 7 unfolds... Lata...

[Josh]

Okay, let's take a look at Daniel 7:8-14

8 "While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9 "As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Don't you think this passage (especially verses 9, 11-14) puts the setting of the little horn at the time of Christ's setting up of his kingdom and not at some later date?

Btw, I will admit that verse 10 (with it's final judgment overtones) might be a bit troublesome to my schema.

Also, do you have any ideas on the interpretation of the "three horns uprooted before him"? Going with your interpretation, would you see this as perhaps Italy, Gaul (France), and Spain or something like that? (enfolded into the RCC)

[Josh]

I got my Thessolonians volume of Ancient Christian Commentary.
I know you already said that most ante-nicene fathers saw the man of lawlessness as a future figure (implying that some did not), but I was curious to read about those who saw him as a past figure.

First off, I think I found a near- universal equating of the man of lawlessness with the Antichrist among the Church Fathers (contrary to my proposed view)

I did find one reference to Nero as a "type of the antichrist" in relation to this 2 Thess passage (Chrysostom), but that not too relevant to the issue.

The most interesting one I did find was from Theodoret of Cyr:

"Some say that the mystery of iniquity is Nero, that the master of impiety has already lived. But I think that the apostle indicates the heresies that have since arisen"

Interesting admission of other views, but your original point about the general thrust of the ECFs still stands.