Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(WELS Lutheran) STATEMENT ON THE ANTICHRIST (Open)
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod Website ^

Posted on 07/07/2008 6:33:25 AM PDT by markomalley

STATEMENT ON THE ANTICHRIST


Introduction to the Statement
As Martin Luther grew in his appreciation of the gospel, he also grew in his recognition that the Papacy is the Antichrist. A 1954 WELS pamphlet entitled Antichrist put it this way: “It was because Luther cherished the Gospel so dearly that his faith instinctively recoiled and protested in unmistakable terms when the Pope put himself in the place of Christ and declared His work insufficient and in vain. That is the use to which Luther’s faith put the prophecy of Scripture. For him the tenet that the Pope is the Antichrist was an article of faith.”

Luther left no doubt where he stood concerning the Papacy when he wrote, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him” (Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12).

In the centuries after Luther’s death, Lutherans accepted this confessional statement without reservation or qualification. In the 1860s, however, doubts about this confessional statement were raised within Lutheranism. They arose from the Iowa Synod, which 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 Missouri Synod took the lead, at that time, in defending the view of the Lutheran Confessions that the prophecies of Antichrist have been fulfilled in the Papacy.

The Iowa Synod, however, in a 1904 document continued to teach the view that it is a “human application” of the teaching of Scripture to declare the Papacy to be the Antichrist. The Iowa Synod 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 (VI, B, 1).


In its “Brief Statement” of 1932 the Missouri Synod repudiated the teaching that the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist is only a historical judgment. It declared, “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 declared that the doctrine of Antichrist is “not to be included in the number of open questions” (43, 44).

As time went on, however, the Missouri Synod began to retreat from its previous position. 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.

This view was endorsed by the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Convention in Houston in 1953.

It was in this setting, then, that the "Statement on the Antichrist" was drafted. The Joint Doctrinal Committees of the Synodical Conference adopted this statement on October 15, 1958, and reported this to the Lutheran Synodical Conference Convention in 1960. The "Statement on the Antichrist" was adopted by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod at its convention in Saginaw, Michigan, in 1959, without a dissenting vote. The Missouri Synod, however, never formally adopted it.

In conclusion, we quote a statement from an essay written in 1957 which puts this doctrine into proper perspective:

This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Yet it is an important article and should not be side-stepped or slighted. It is clearly revealed in the divine word, and there is nothing needless and useless in the Bible; God wants us to know about the Antichrist. . . . This article is clearly expressed in the Lutheran Confessions; whoever denies it does not stand in one faith with his fathers; he is not a confessional Lutheran. A Lutheran preacher should know, believe, and teach this article or frankly confess that he no longer subscribes to the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. If we value the saving doctrine of the vicarious atonement through the blood of Jesus Christ, the God-man, in these latter days of the world, we shall do well to keep the facts concerning the Antichrist well in mind (“The Scriptural Doctrine of the Antichrist,” Our Great Heritage, Vol. 3, pp. 601,602).


Statement on the Antichrist

  1. Scripture speaks of many forces and powers which are actively hostile to Christ and His Church, and uses the term “antichrist” with reference to some of them.

    Da 11:36-38; Mt 24:22-25; 1 Ti 4:1-3; 2 Ti 3:1-9; 1 Jn 2:18-22 —compare the whole passage, 18-23; 1 Jn 4:1-6; 2 Jn 7; 2 Th 2:1-12, compare also 13-17.


    These and similar passages reveal to the Church that antichristian forces will appear in various recurrent forms until the end of time.

  2. Scripture, however, speaks also of a particular personal embodiment of the antichristian power in which the iniquity of false teaching finds its climax (2 Th 2:1-12):

    Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

    Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, who the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

    It is with this aspect of the antichristian power that the Lutheran Confessions deal under the term “antichrist,” and we in a reaffirmation of the Lutheran faith are so using the term. Passages from the Lutheran Confessions dealing with the subject of the Antichrist:

    Apology XV, 18,19:

    And what need is there of words on a subject so manifest? If the adversaries defend these human services as meriting justification, grace, and the remission of sins, they simply establish the kingdom of Antichrist. For the kingdom of Antichrist is a new service of God, devised by human authority rejecting Christ, just as the kingdom of Mahomet has services and works through which it wishes to be justified before God; nor does it hold that men are gratuitously justified before God by faith, for Christ’s sake. Thus the Papacy also will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defends human services as justifying. For the honor is taken away from Christ when they teach that we are not justified gratuitously by faith, for Christ’s sake, but by such services; especially when they teach that such services are not only useful for justification, but are also necessary, as they hold above in Art. VII, where they condemn us for saying that unto true unity of the Church it is not necessary that rites instituted by men should everywhere be alike. Daniel 11:38 indicates that new human services will be the very form and constitution of the kingdom of Antichrist. For he says thus: “But in his estate shall he honor the god of forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver and precious stones.”

    Apology XXIV, 97,98:
    Carnal men cannot endure that alone to the sacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed that it is a propitiation, because they do not understand the righteousness of faith, but ascribe equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices. Just as, therefore, in Judah among the godless priests a false opinion concerning sacrifices inhered; just as in Israel, Baalitic services continued, and nevertheless, a Church of God was there which disapproved of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in the domain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply, that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guilt and punishment. [And yet, as God still kept His Church, i.e., some saints, in Israel and Judah, so God still preserved His Church, i.e., some saints, under the Papacy, so that the Christian Church has not entirely perished.] And it seems that this Baalitic worship will endure as long as the reign of the Pope, until Christ will come to judge, and by the glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist.

    Smalcald Articles II, II, 25:

    The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ. Neither is it commanded nor counseled, nor has it any example [or testimony] in Scripture, and even though it were a precious thing, as it is not [while, on the contrary, it is a most harmful thing], in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better [and surer, so that we are not in need of calling upon the saints].

    Smalcald Articles II, IV, 10-14, (cf. also Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, X, 20):

    This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God, as Paul says (2 Th 2:4). Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

    The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God’s name. This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven. And when we distinguish the Pope’s teaching from, or measure and hold it against, Holy Scripture, it is found [it appears plainly] that the Pope’s teaching, where it is best, has been taken from the imperial and heathen law, and treats of political matters and decisions or rights as the Decretals show; furthermore, it teaches of ceremonies concerning churches, garments, food, persons and (similar) puerile, theatrical, and comical things without measure, but in all these things nothing at all of Christ, faith, and the commandments of God. Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one’s own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy) [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing,] and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

    Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 39-41:

    Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, 2 Th 2:3, in describing to the Thessalonians Antichrist, calls him “an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God.” He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel and will assume to himself divine authority.

    Moreover, it is manifest, in the first place, that the Pope rules in the Church, and by the pretext of ecclesiastical authority and of the ministry has established for himself this kingdom. For he assigns as a pretext these words: “I will give to thee the keys.” Secondly, the doctrine of the Pope conflicts in many ways with the Gospel, and [thirdly] the Pope assumes to himself divine authority in a threefold manner. First, because he takes to himself the right to change the doctrine of Christ and services instituted by God, and wants his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine; secondly, because he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also the jurisdiction over souls after this life; thirdly, because the Pope does not want to be judged by the Church or by anyone, and puts his own authority ahead of the decision of Councils and the entire Church. But to be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by anyone is to make oneself God. Lastly, these errors so horrible, and this impiety, he defends with the greatest cruelty, and puts to death those dissenting.

    This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded, Mt 7:15: “Beware of false prophets.” And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed, Gal 1:8; Tit 3:10; and in 2 Co 6:14 he says: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: For what communion hath light with darkness?”

    Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 57:

    Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

  3. The passage (2 Th 2:1-12) promises that God will reveal the “man of lawlessness” and states the tokens, or marks, by means of which God will reveal him to the eyes of faith.

    Among these marks are:

    1. He “sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Th 2:4). He is a religious power demanding religious allegiance, usurping authority in the Church and tyrannizing Christian consciences. Cf. Smalcald Articles II, IV, 10-14.
    2. He is an embodiment of Satanic power. This is manifested:

      1. in the fact that he appears as the one who “will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God” (2 Th 2:4). He is God’s Adversary;
      2. and in the fact that his opposition to God is an opposition of disguise and deceit. He opposes God by usurping the place and name of God (2 Th 2:4). The Satanic appears, characteristically, in religious form: the “coming” of Antichrist is pitted against the “coming” of Christ, his signs and lying wonders against the miracles of Christ, faith in his lie against faith in the truth of Christ (2 Th 2:10-11).


  4. Therefore on the basis of a renewed study of the pertinent Scriptures we reaffirm the statement of the Lutheran Confessions, that “the Pope is the very Antichrist” (cf. Section II), especially since he anathematizes the doctrine of the justification by faith alone and sets himself up as the infallible head of the Church.

    We thereby affirm that we identify this “Antichrist” with the Papacy as it is known to us today, which shall, as 2 Thessalonians 2:8 states, continue to the end of time, whatever form or guise it may take. This neither means nor implies a blanket condemnation of all members of the Roman Catholic Church, for despite all the errors taught in that church the Word of God is still heard there, and that Word is an effectual Word. Isa 55:10, 11; cf. Apology XXIV, 98, cited above under II.

    We make this confession in the confidence of faith. The Antichrist cannot deceive us if we remain under the revelation given us in the Apostolic word (2 Th 2:13-17), for in God’s gracious governance of history the Antichrist can deceive only those who “refused to love the truth” (2 Th 2:10-12).

    And we make this confession in the confidence of hope. The Antichrist shall not destroy us but shall himself be destroyed—“Whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming” (2 Th 2:8).

    We reject the idea that the fulfillment of this prophecy is to be sought in the workings of any merely secular political power (2 Th 2:4; cf. Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope 39).

    We reject the idea that the teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist rests on a merely human interpretation of history or is an open question. We hold rather that this teaching rests on the revelation of God in Scripture which finds its fulfillment in history. The Holy Spirit reveals this fulfillment to the eyes of faith (cf. The Abiding Word, Vol. 2, p. 764). Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Th 2:6,8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture which reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist.




TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: antichrist; catholic; elca; luther; lutherans; wels
I thought that the WELS was one of the Lutheran groups that had modified their views on the papacy as the antichrist (to my knowledge, the LCMS was the only major Lutheran group that still maintained that belief). Apparently they, in fact, hadn't changed their views after all.

Is the above article still an accurate statement of Lutheran belief on the papacy in general? Or just the WELS?

(Believe it or not, I'm just trying to find out the above answers...not trying to stir up a hornet's nest)

1 posted on 07/07/2008 6:33:25 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yes... the papist hornets on this website are also awaiting a response.


2 posted on 07/07/2008 6:35:39 AM PDT by elcid1970 (My cartridges are dipped in pig grease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I don't think the Roman church is now or has been Antichrist. But it bears watching in the future. An organization which vests all power in one man is uniquely vulnerable to attack.
3 posted on 07/07/2008 6:44:47 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Luther left no doubt where he stood concerning the Papacy when he wrote, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist

I gotta disagree with Luther on this one. Obama is the antichrist.

4 posted on 07/07/2008 6:51:20 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I gotta disagree with Luther on this one. Obama is the antichrist.

***********************

I believe you are quite right.

5 posted on 07/07/2008 6:55:15 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The tiny WELS is more conservative than the LCMS on pretty much every Lutheran doctrinal distinctive.

You may have WELS confused with another group.

6 posted on 07/07/2008 6:58:19 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Isn’t a deceiver supposed to precede the antichrist?
We are seeing a world class deceiver on stage, running for leader of the free world. I think he’s even managed to deceive himself.


7 posted on 07/07/2008 7:01:35 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Well, in the book of Revelation, the two beasts are described like the Roman emperor and the high priest of the emperor cult. Furthermore, the “number of the beast”, 666, corresponds to the title “Nero Ceasar”.

That does not mean that a preterist interpretation is the only valid one-—it may mean John was saying that history will repeat itself again with the same emperor/imperial cult motif surfacing to persecute the people of God, like it repeated itself with the Roman empire.


8 posted on 07/07/2008 7:02:14 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

From what I have been told by Lutherans, the WELS (third largest group after ELCA and LCMS) is considered a bit radical. I believe they also dropped James from the NT (or some other such book that Luther didn’t like but left in).

I would say this is a very accurate statement of belief for the WELS but not Lutherans in General.

I would suspect the “open question” theory would be how it is treated among some of the more traditionally minded Lutherans.


9 posted on 07/07/2008 7:04:15 AM PDT by Cheverus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
In the LCMS, the Book of Concord is considered our synod's "little t" truth understanding of the Bible's "Big T" Truth.

As far as I know, the ELCA considers both the Bible and the Book of Concord as historical documents with only elements of truth.

In the LCMS, we consider Luther's belief as only having elements of truth.

Interestingly, the pastors in the LCMS are required to believe the Book of Concord is in complete agreement with the Bible, but this is not required of the congregation.

10 posted on 07/07/2008 7:06:50 AM PDT by Tao Yin (Hey, this thread isn't ecumenical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Th 2:6,8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture which reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

I think I'll mail the author a copy of my tagline.

When all is said and done, it's really nothing more than pride and presumption, allied to an absence of the virtue of prudence, which underlies writing like this.

St. Peter, in his second letter, when referring to the writings of St. Paul, says that parts of Paul's writings are difficult to understand and that they are often twisted by those who wish to use them for their own purposes. You'd think that an admonition from Scripture itself, that certain parts of Scripture are difficult to understand, would give pause to the headstrong and foolhardy. Apparently not.

Aside from that, I'd just draw attention to the scripturally unsound belief that the Antichrist is an office and not a man ("the Papacy is the Antichrist"). That logically implies that the role of Antichrist is an elected post and that the present Pope was not the Antichrist before he was elected in 2005. Not solid Scriptural scholarship nor even good English.

Let "the Bible sez" crowd continue to argue amongst themselves and tie themselves up in knots about their personal takes on Sacred Scripture.

11 posted on 07/07/2008 7:07:01 AM PDT by marshmallow (An infallible Bible is useless without an infallible interpreter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

LOL!!! i only clicked on this article because i was just sure the Lutherans and proclaimed Obama as the antichrist. Especially in light of his 75,000 strong audience of adoring fans for his acceptance of the nomination. that screams out antichrist right there.


12 posted on 07/07/2008 7:10:28 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cheverus
I believe they also dropped James from the NT (or some other such book that Luther didn’t like but left in).

As a WELS member, I can you tell 100% that statement is false. We have not dropped any books from the NT.

13 posted on 07/07/2008 7:20:26 AM PDT by PjhCPA (catchy taglines are boring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin
Interestingly, the pastors in the LCMS are required to believe the Book of Concord is in complete agreement with the Bible, but this is not required of the congregation.

This is the same in most confessional churches. We are independent, but our church constitution states that elders and deacons must be in full subscription to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (our adopted confession) but church members only need to be in general subscription. This is to safeguard the church from having men teaching that are not in agreement with what the church has adopted as a doctrinal standard.
14 posted on 07/07/2008 7:21:08 AM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Thinking of converting there Mark? ;-)


15 posted on 07/07/2008 7:24:03 AM PDT by Gamecock (The question is not, Am I good enough to be a Christian? rather Am I good enough not to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
There is only one infallible interpretor: the Holy Spirit.

1 John 4:1 do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God

If the early Church had the authority to test the spirit, then the modern Church should as well.

An individual man or institution as an infallible interpretor is not an Apostolic Teaching. It is a human rationalization for the power of Rome.

With the Holy Spirit, if they listen and submit, truth will win. Otherwise their works will burn up and they'll be left naked before God.

16 posted on 07/07/2008 7:31:51 AM PDT by Tao Yin (Hey, this thread isn't ecumenical)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

**We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. **

I find it difficult to believe that Lutherans actually believe this.

I’m sure it is a surprise to Pope Benedict XVI.

Just Catholic Bashing nonsense, in my opinion.


17 posted on 07/07/2008 7:54:21 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

18 posted on 07/07/2008 8:05:04 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
An organization which vests all power in one man is uniquely vulnerable to attack.

The Pope has no power of his own. He cannot (in his own name) excommunicate any person, revise the liturgy, or force anyone to do anything. He does possess the authority to teach, but this only in Christ's name; should any teaching of a given pope contradict that which Christ taught, whether directly or through the mouths of previous popes, he would cease to be pope. In other words, no pope can ever teach (for example) that abortion is not a sin or that one can attain eternal life by means other than Jesus Christ; were a given pope to do so, he would prove himself an antipope by definition.

19 posted on 07/07/2008 8:10:51 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg

Here is an interesting tidbit...at the time the bible was assembled, the capital of the roman empire was the city of seven hills, more commonly known as Constantinople(Constantinople was actually built on top of seven hills, and the structure to this day still supports the city )this city is located in turkey, and today is known as Istanbul. Could the antichrist originate in this city? Does that mean the antichrist is muslim?


20 posted on 07/07/2008 8:11:57 AM PDT by joe fonebone (The Second Amendment is the Constitutions reset button)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

Very funny (/sarcasm) unless you are referring to ELCA which gave up on Luther’s teachings a long time ago.


21 posted on 07/07/2008 8:12:30 AM PDT by PjhCPA (catchy taglines are boring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA

ELCA hasn’t given up on Luther’s teachings. It is just selective about them. He wasn’t a prophet after all. But much of his teachings are gold and have aided millions of Christians on their journey.


22 posted on 07/07/2008 8:24:58 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ping to read & respond later


23 posted on 07/07/2008 9:09:28 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PastorTony
... elders and deacons must be in full subscription to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith ...

And the London Confessions includes (§26.4)

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. In Him, by the appointment of the Father, is vested in a supreme and sovereign manner all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church. The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be head of the Church, but he is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, who the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

But 1 John 2:18 refers to "many antichrists,", and it it may be more accurate to refer to the Bishop of Rome as an antichrist than as the antichrist.

24 posted on 07/07/2008 11:56:49 AM PDT by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
"... at the time the bible was assembled, the capital of the roman empire was the city of seven hills, more commonly known as Constantinople ..."

OK, but at the time the Bible was recorded, the capitol of the Roman empire was Rome, and Rome ... also was built on seven hills. See The Seven Hills of Rome

25 posted on 07/07/2008 12:02:36 PM PDT by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Having been around LCMC for many decades this posting is not a factual belief of members.

Bashing doesn’t elevate your personal belief.


26 posted on 07/07/2008 12:08:25 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Don't Blame Me - I Supported Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
But 1 John 2:18 refers to "many antichrists,", and it it may be more accurate to refer to the Bishop of Rome as an antichrist than as the antichrist.

I would agree. Note though that full subscription means in the sense of the document not in a wooden literal sense.
27 posted on 07/07/2008 12:18:35 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Celtman

This would make sense if the vatican was built on seven hills....but it was only built on one hill, vatican hill........


28 posted on 07/07/2008 12:28:36 PM PDT by joe fonebone (The Second Amendment is the Constitutions reset button)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Thinking of converting there Mark? ;-)

LOL

 

 

BTW, like your tagline!

29 posted on 07/07/2008 12:51:16 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Just Catholic Bashing nonsense, in my opinion.

Just a small piece of history...

(I actually know of no Lutherans who actually believe this in practice. I find it funny to see it listed as dogma on an official synod website, though)

30 posted on 07/07/2008 12:53:44 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Having been around LCMC for many decades this posting is not a factual belief of members.

May not be, but it is on the official website of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. So, regardless of what members think, that is the official position of the denomination.

Bashing doesn’t elevate your personal belief.

How is quoting an article from an official source bashing the source? Or are you thinking that I was bashing Catholics?

31 posted on 07/07/2008 12:56:25 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Wisconsin Synod, LCMS and ELC are different synods of the Lutheran church.

The Litergy is different in them.
They also have a different take on belifs.

LCMS is closer to the Catholic and Episcopal, one reason most parishes won’t allow and ELC Pastor in the pulpit or
communion to them.

One reason it was easy to follow the Mass at the Kolon Cathedral in Germany

Wisc. can’t speak for LCMS as they are also different.


32 posted on 07/07/2008 1:25:10 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Don't Blame Me - I Supported Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Wisconsin Synod, LCMS and ELC are different synods of the Lutheran church

Understood.

The Litergy is different in them.

OK.

They also have a different take on belifs.

OK

LCMS is closer to the Catholic and Episcopal, one reason most parishes won’t allow and ELC Pastor in the pulpit or communion to them.

I'd heard that before.

One reason it was easy to follow the Mass at the Kolon Cathedral in Germany

OK, we're talking about this one, right:

Always thought that it was a Catholic cathedral...

Wisc. can’t speak for LCMS as they are also different.

Sure, that only makes sense.

But what about this statement from the official LCMS website:

43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation -- these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Source: A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod [Adopted 1932].

As I stated earlier, I haven't actually met any Lutherans (of any particular stripe) who believe that the above is true. Despite that, the above is the official position of the LCMS.

33 posted on 07/07/2008 3:37:52 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Always thought that it was a Catholic cathedral...

*******************

It looks like one, doesn't it? Beautiful.

34 posted on 07/07/2008 3:40:16 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Always thought that it was a Catholic cathedral...

It is, but the litergy even in German is very much alike

Most LCMS have kneelers, kneel at communion and the host put on the tougue, stations of the cross, and could go on.

Digging up crap from the 1930s doesn’t prove anything only that you seem to want to put a wedge between religions that are more alike than not.

IF you have feel you have to tear down one religion to build up yours, it does’t say much for yours and I say that with a large majorty of my family being Catholic besides LCMS Lutheran and Anglo-Catholic.


35 posted on 07/07/2008 4:19:38 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Don't Blame Me - I Supported Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Digging up crap from the 1930s doesn’t prove anything only that you seem to want to put a wedge between religions that are more alike than not.

No, you're missing the point. That is not crap dug up from 1930s. That is from the 2008 website. It still exists. It hasn't been disavowed.

I don't have a wedge. I am exposing the wedge that, in fact, exists. I am, in fact, quite pleased with joint statements put out by the Catholics and the Lutherans, such as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

The point is that the statement, although made in 1932, is still an official point of LCMS doctrine, as indicated by their official website. If it's not current teaching, don't you think that your synod should amend it, sort of like what most of the Presbyterians did with the Westminster Confession?

I mean, I agree with you that the vast majority of Lutheran doctrine is VERY similar to Catholic doctrine. The majority of the points brought out by the 99 Theses were, in fact, addressed by the Council of Trent...particularly the issue addressing the sin of Simony prevalent in the Church during Luther's time (which, as I recall, was Luther's primary reason for breaking from the Church).

But if statements like the WELS statement I posted in the original post and the LCMS statement I posted above exist...on both Synods' official sites...then don't those statements need to be acknowledged? And then if there is a division between the Lutheran laity and their leadership, shouldn't the division be rectified (either better catechesis to the laity, explaining how the statements are right, or a modification of the statements by the leadership)?

But individual Lutherans sticking their heads in the sand about those statements is analogous to a Catholic sticking his head in the sand about Marian dogma or about relics or the like.

One way or the other, I think it should be addressed. Not as a matter of knocking Lutherans or knocking Catholics. Rather, as a matter of theological honesty.

36 posted on 07/07/2008 7:22:46 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

You might want to contact one of the LCMS seminaries and speak to someone who can factually give you an answer
as there is no LCMS clergy I have known or members who hold to that view.

I was at the SchlosKirche in Wittenberg in 1983 where the
95 Theses were posted and Luther is buried in the chancel.

was also at the Wartburg Castle

Saw the monistery where he was an Augustinian Monk and the church he was ordained a priest.

There are also Catholic writings on orthodox Protestants
that border on hate and misunderstanding but I can see beyond that even though I have ancestors who were killed in the St. Bartholomew Day’s Massacre, many 9th and 10th great grandparents fled Europe and made it to Holland then England then to New Amsterdam (NYC)in 1620s

I have over 150 9th great grandparents that fled England
in late 1620s to 1634 to New England. Some earlier were in hiding in the 1500s.

I have researched the history on these ancestors but don’t believe in making a career in grinding away at their persecutors.

I am more concerned with my relatives in Iraq, Afgan. and Africa fighting the IslamOfascists who want to do away with
all Christians and Jews.


37 posted on 07/07/2008 8:42:05 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Don't Blame Me - I Supported Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
You might want to contact one of the LCMS seminaries and speak to someone who can factually give you an answer as there is no LCMS clergy I have known or members who hold to that view.

I was actually hoping that a Lutheran clergyman might respond to this thread.

I was at the SchlosKirche in Wittenberg in 1983 where the 95 Theses were posted and Luther is buried in the chancel. was also at the Wartburg Castle

I visited there in 1977.

There are also Catholic writings on orthodox Protestants that border on hate and misunderstanding but I can see beyond that even though I have ancestors who were killed in the St. Bartholomew Day’s Massacre, many 9th and 10th great grandparents fled Europe and made it to Holland then England then to New Amsterdam (NYC)in 1620s.

Yup, I know. Feeneyism was condemned as heretical by the Vatican a long time ago. ref. Even the author of the august tome, Babylon Mystery Religion, has renounced this book and his earlier writing. There has, frankly, been enough blood shed on both sides, in my opinion. We Christians have a common enemy.

Having said that, wounds need to be exposed to light and air to truly heal. Denying they exist do nothing but allow them to fester beneath the covers. As JPII stated back in 1994,

33. Hence it is appropriate that, as the Second Millennium of Christianity draws to a close, the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal.

source

I am more concerned with my relatives in Iraq, Afgan. and Africa fighting the IslamOfascists who want to do away with all Christians and Jews.

No doubt. Unfortunately, our government seems to want to collaborate with their extermination.

38 posted on 07/08/2008 4:07:31 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA

Thank you for the correction, I had been led to believe that from a less reliable source.


39 posted on 07/08/2008 1:43:34 PM PDT by Cheverus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

WELS

has long been about as

exclusivistically loopy as the RC edifice has been.

I don’t think either side of the two have much grounds to point the finger at the other on those scores.


40 posted on 07/13/2008 5:58:02 PM PDT by Quix (WE HAVE THE OIL NOW http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

It was... they just bulldozed the other six to confuse people.


41 posted on 07/17/2008 7:19:59 AM PDT by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson