Posted on 10/05/2015 9:49:15 AM PDT by markomalley
There is a broad theological and ecclesiological spectrum within global Lutheranism.
There are some who take a very high view of every section of the “Lutheran Symbols” (the confessional writings of the Book of Concord) including the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Primacy of the Pope.
There are others who place a greater weight of authority on the Large and Small Catechism and the Confession of Augsburg and its Apology than on the other documents.
When it comes to eccelisology, there are some bodies, such as Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ who are essentially congregationalist. There are others, like the Church of Sweden, which are very hierarchical. The C of S considers its Bishops to be in Apostolic succession.
There are a fair number of North American Lutheran clergy who were taught that the Reformation was to make a “proposition for dogma” in Article IV of the Augsburg Confession (justification) and that by Rome accepting that —albeit with nuances and backpeddling on both sides—in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999 that we have reached the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end of the Reformation era.
That's why there is elca.
If Luther had a conscience he would have remained a Catholic and gone about getting things changed through the proper channels.
Instead he rebelled.
Actually, some of the staunchest proponents of that interpretation find themselves as the “loyal opposition” within the ELCA—or else they have fled for the NALC.
Those sorts tend to be high church liturgically, anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage....in many ways better Catholics than most “Catholic” politicians.
If they support the elca policies via their communion, time, talent or treasure, they may be loyal opposition within elca, but they are disloyal to their Lord.
That, or mugwumps.
8th Commandment, you know.
Are they in communion with the elcs or not? Whatever their private witness, they can’t escape their public witness pastor. You should know that. Witness Paul’s rebuke to Peter.
'nuff said
We had a guest pastor come do a sermon about fear two weeks ago. Yes, I’m still at my ELCA church, but not for very much longer.
She gushed about the Pope, and about his openness and inclusivity, etc.
I think I smell a little fear. I haven’t looked at the books, but I’ll bet it isn’t doing well financially.
This is the second time in a couple of weeks that the ELCA has tried to adopt the Pope.
They are making a big deal about this being the 499th year since the 99 points were nailed to the door. You have to ask, would Luther belong to the church that bears his name?
You are planning to leave? Every day spent in that church is another day supporting the wrong team
My wife grew up in that church, as did her parents. They’re columbarium niche is there, as is her uncle’s. It’s taken three years, but yes, we are at the end of the process.
My daughter was the one who iced it. She wanted to go to a church her best friend and their family attends, and she cottoned to it.
My wife is putting the faith life of our kids over tradition. Good for her on that.
.
Followers of Yeshua have only the bishop of their local congregation.
.
No, he assented to the Word of God.
.... as have hundreds of millions of other believers who are now SAVED by grace (not of themselves) through faith.
Grace?
According to the Book of Concord, the office of the papacy is the Anti-Christ. At the time of the Reformation, the Pope had his fingers in all the pies in the world, doling out land to rulers, deposing rulers, and the like. Setting up a secular empire is not what the Church is supposed to be doing; hence, the supposed "Vicar of Christ" was acting in an un-Christ-like manner. That is more or less the definition of the Anti-Christ according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
The abuses have been greatly diminished since the Reformation. However, today the Pope still has the power to speak ex cathedra and establish new doctrines, which is still "oppos[ing] and exalt[ing] himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). In this sense, the office of the Pope is still the Anti-Christ.
However, I see a distinction between the office and the man. The man in the office can behave in a way more fitting of the medieval popes who "lived it up" or in a way fitting of a spiritual leader. If the man's life and words are a poor example, I'm not going to pay him all that much attention; he's living up to the office of Anti-Christ. However, if the man's life and words are a good example, then I don't see a problem with appreciating the good he has done. I still wouldn't call him "my bishop," though.
Long story short, as long as the Pope can establish new doctrines on a whim, the Office of Pope is the Anti-Christ; the man doesn't necessarily have to be. I'm not sure how doctrinally-correct that is, but there you go.
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.