Pope = Antichrist? from lcms website

[ILoveYeshua]

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

Of the Antichrist
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

[Adopted 1932]

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.)


I was unaware that this was the LCMS official position! huh. But if the pope believes that Jesus is the Christ, then how could he be... antichrist? What do y'all think?

[LutherNut]

But if the pope believes that Jesus is the Christ, then how could he be... antichrist? What do y'all think?

That in itself means nothing.
Even Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ.

[ILoveYeshua]

> That in itself means nothing. Even Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ.

oh yeah, you have a good point there! lol.

So that must be why I always get warned when I post scripture over in OBOB, cuz they're antichrist (based on lcms doctrine) and thus despise the scriptures. A couple times I've posted straight-up words of Christ, not even adding any comments of my own, and the post got deleted..... huh. learn something new everyday.

[Tetzel]

I thought by your name you'd be a messianic Jew, but your faith icon says LCMS. Are you new to the LCMS?

[KEPLER]

We should be careful to note here that this is speaking of the office of the papacy, not about individual men. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Bendict XVI) may indeed be a child of God, who are we to judge his heart? But the office stands in opposition to Christ's intent for the Church.

Kepler

[LilLamb219]

cuz they're antichrist (based on lcms doctrine)

Huh? That's not true.

[KEPLER]

So that must be why I always get warned when I post scripture over in OBOB, cuz they're antichrist (based on lcms doctrine) and thus despise the scriptures.

Erm...as LilLamb noted, that is not the case. They are people who confess the Divinity of Christ, just as we do. We make no such judgments about them. Please be very careful with that, eh?

Eric

[ILoveYeshua]

did you go to the website? thats the lcms position

[hsilgne]

That in itself means nothing.
Even Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Excellent point... therefore faith alone obviously, is not enough to save our souls.

[LilLamb219]

At the moment the LCMS website is down. But you are mistaken if you think we find other denominations to be the anti-christ. I'm certain that is not what the site says.

[LilLamb219]

Excellent point... therefore faith alone obviously, is not enough to save our souls.

Believing that Jesus exists and having faith for salvation are two different things.

[night2day]

...the office stands in opposition to Christ's intent for the Church...

Exactly.

The Office of the Papacy claimimg to be Christ's Vicar on Earth is reason enough for it to be termed an Anti-Christ.

The Office of the Papacy basically is stating it has the power and the authority the Holy Spirit only has.

Therefore, the office is against Christ.

[night2day]

At the moment the LCMS website is down. But you are mistaken if you think we find other denominations to be the anti-christ. I'm certain that is not what the site says.

First one should define anti-christ. An anti-christ is one who stands on opposition to Christ. But it is also someone who tries to take the place of Christ.

If one looks at the denominations* in Christianity, which ones profess within their teachings a false Christ? A false gospel? What about those who proclaim Christ yet proclaim all will be saved and have admittance to Heaven without being saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone?

There are a number of denominations falling into apostosy and will continue to do so as this world continues to draw closer to the End when Jesus will return. Jesus stated it would be this way so it should come as no surprise.

(*when I refer to denominations, I usually refer to what that denomination teaches and proclaims, not the individual members, unless otherwise noted.)

[SPALATIN]

I believe that these first 4 speak to this question fairly well.

You can find the whole document here. (http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.html)













A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the PopeTreatise
Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald
1537
1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, [I]i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

[LutherNut]

Excellent point... therefore faith alone obviously, is not enough to save our souls.

Knowing who Jesus is does not equate to saving faith. Just because Satan and his angels know who Jesus is and that He is the Christ, the Holy One of God, does not mean that they are saved. They do not have saving faith. They openly reject the gift of faith in Christ, opting to do things for themselves - a works-based righteousness.

Hmmm... that sounds familiar...:scratch:

[Tetzel]

Well the whole idea of salvation's rules being applied to angels and demons is irrelevant because salvation is for people.

[hsilgne]

Hmmm... that sounds familiar...:scratch:

I am not familiar with that, can you point out where I might find such a teaching?

What I am familiar with, however, is the teaching that works are a result of faith. Without faith there are no works. Refer to James Chapter 2. Below is an excerpt. In particular, verse 20 hits the nail on the head, IMHO.


JAMES, Chapter 2
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

[KEPLER]

I am not familiar with that, can you point out where I might find such a teaching?

What I am familiar with, however, is the teaching that works are a result of faith. Without faith there are no works. Refer to James Chapter 2. Below is an excerpt. In particular, verse 20 hits the nail on the head, IMHO.

JAMES, Chapter 2
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

Yes, an excellent example of the a posteriori view of faith: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. IOW, "Works follow faith, therefore they are caused by faith."

They do not, however, produce faith, neither do they measure faith.

Kepler

[hsilgne]

Yes, an excellent example of the a posteriori view of faith: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. IOW, "Works follow faith, therefore they are caused by faith."
They do not, however, produce faith, neither do they measure faith.
Kepler

Your implication here, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Catholic church teaches you can "work your way into heaven". Like many misinformed protestants, you are incorrect.

If you would like to learn more, you can read an accurate representation of what the Church teaches here > http://www.newman99.com/17.html

Peace in Christ.

[SPALATIN]

Your implication here, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Catholic church teaches you can "work your way into heaven". Like many misinformed protestants, you are incorrect.

If you would like to learn more, you can read an accurate representation of what the Church teaches here > http://www.newman99.com/17.html

Peace in Christ.


No,

Actually he is saying that according to the Roman Catholic Church that works produce faith not that they save you. Whereas the Lutheran Church states the opposite that Works are a fruit of faith received in sanctification from the Holy Spirit.

[hsilgne]

No,

Actually he is saying that according to the Roman Catholic Church that works produce faith not that they save you.

I'm sorry my friend, you are mistaken. Please take time to investigate this yourself. Please consider, if you look for "Catholic Answers" from anti catholics, you are looking in the wrong place.

Whereas the Lutheran Church states the opposite that Works are a fruit of faith received in sanctification from the Holy Spirit.

Are you aware that Luther, in many instances, edited scripture from it's original text.

One example being, Romans 5:1, he changed it from "justified by faith" to "justified by faith ALONE".


Peace to you in the name of Jesus Christ.

[SPALATIN]

I'm sorry my friend, you are mistaken. Please take time to investigate this yourself. Please consider, if you look for "Catholic Answers" from anti catholics, you are looking in the wrong place.



Are you aware that Luther, in many instances, edited scripture from it's original text.

One example being, Romans 5:1, he changed it from "justified by faith" to "justified by faith ALONE".


Peace to you in the name of Jesus Christ.

1 Nun wir denn sind gerecht geworden durch den Glauben, so haben wir Frieden mit Gott durch unsern HERRN Jesus Christus,

Translated from the Luther Bibel 1545:

now we are fairly become by the faith, then we have peace with God through Jesus Christ.

Faith in Christ alone maybe but we can't just put faith in a vacuum. Faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit and not something we obtain of itself. Faith also must be invested in something. In the case of Christianity it is invested in Christ who alone is worthy.

I think there is some misconception of how Luther meant faith alone by those in the Roman Catholic Church. We mean that we don't need to do works to earn salvation so on that count faith alone in Christ alone is the better statement.

[hsilgne]

1 Nun wir denn sind gerecht geworden durch den Glauben, so haben wir Frieden mit Gott durch unseren HERRN Jesus Christus,


La paix à vous au nom de Jésus Christ. Unfortunaltely, je comprends seulement l'anglais et un litlle français. S'il vous plaît respond dans l'anglais.

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post


Please note that this is the congregational forum for Confessional Lutherans of the LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCC synods. According to Christian Forums rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules), 2.2b. The Congregation subforums only allow debate between people belonging to the Congregation - others can only post fellowship and ask questions. This is not the appropriate place for non-Lutherans to accuse Luther of mistranslations nor to debate Lutheran doctrines.


Furthermore, in referencing the words of websites or other posters, please do not attribute meanings or intentions that the original poster did not actually express.

The LCMS website does not, in fact, pass any judgement on our brother and sister Christians at OBOB nor accuse them of hating scripture (it speaks very precisely about the office of the Pope).

Similarly, the words "Yes, an excellent example of the a posteriori view of faith: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. IOW, Works follow faith, therefore they are caused by faith. They do not, however, produce faith, neither do they measure faith." do NOT attribute any doctrine, false or true, to the Roman Catholic church. These words constitute a statement that stands alone, and do not justify any "corrective" debating by non-Lutherans.



Regards,
Pamela

[hsilgne]

No,

Actually he is saying that according to the Roman Catholic Church that works produce faith not that they save you.

Again my friend, I must reiterate that this statement you made is false. If you do not agree with me, please be so kind as to show me where in the Catholic Catechism this is stated.

Peace in Him.

[hsilgne]

This is an official moderator post


Please note that this is the congregational forum for Confessional Lutherans of the LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCC synods. According to Christian Forums rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules), 2.2b. The Congregation subforums only allow debate between people belonging to the Congregation - others can only post fellowship and ask questions. This is not the appropriate place for non-Lutherans to accuse Luther of mistranslations nor to debate Lutheran doctrines.


Furthermore, in referencing the words of websites or other posters, please do not attribute meanings or intentions that the original poster did not actually express.

The LCMS website does not, in fact, pass any judgement on our brother and sister Christians at OBOB nor accuse them of hating scripture (it speaks very precisely about the office of the Pope).

Similarly, the words "Yes, an excellent example of the a posteriori view of faith: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. IOW, Works follow faith, therefore they are caused by faith. They do not, however, produce faith, neither do they measure faith." do NOT attribute any doctrine, false or true, to the Roman Catholic church. These words constitute a statement that stands alone, and do not justify any "corrective" debating by non-Lutherans.



Regards,
Pamela

My appologies.

Peace in Him.

[pmcleanj]

La paix à vous au nom de Jésus Christ. Unfortunaltely, je comprends seulement l'anglais et un litlle français. S'il vous plaît respond dans l'anglais.
Malheureusment, (que veut dire "unfortunately" en anglais), le mot pour "little" est "un peu de". Vous utilisez la forme "S'il vous plaît", alors il faut que vous utilisez aussi la forme "vous" dans l'imperatif: repondez, pas "respond".

D'ou en Canada venez vous? Pas de Quebec, je croix!;) Mais, mois n'en plus; je viens d'Alberta.

Et, meme si je suis du plus du moins bilingue en francais, j'ai aussi apprene un peu d'allemandais. Si on veut dire quelque chose en comment Luther a tranduisie la Bible, on doit peut-etre comprends un peu de la lange danse laquelle il la a tranduisie, n'est-ce pas?

Comment fait-on la cedille, la circonflexe, et les autres accents? Je crois que j'ecrit en francais meilleurs par stilo!

[hsilgne]

Malheureusment, (que veut dire "unfortunately" en anglais), le mot pour "little" est "un peu de". Vous utilisez la forme "S'il vous plaît", alors il faut que vous utilisez aussi la forme "vous" dans l'imperatif: repondez, pas "respond".

D'ou en Canada venez vous? Pas de Quebec, je croix!;) Mais, mois n'en plus; je viens d'Alberta.

Et, meme si je suis du plus du moins bilingue en francais, j'ai aussi apprene un peu d'allemandais. Si on veut dire quelque chose en comment Luther a tranduisie la Bible, on doit peut-etre comprends un peu de la lange danse laquelle il la a tranduisie, n'est-ce pas?

Comment fait-on la cedille, la circonflexe, et les autres accents? Je crois que j'ecrit en francais meilleurs par stilo!

Bonjour!

hehe! Sorry, I was trying to make a point. I did, however state that I know "LITTLE" french - although as you point out, I made an error in my french canadian translation to that point.

Yes, you are correct, I am not from Quebec rather from Ontario. However, my father is from Quebec. Unforunatley for me, he did not teach me french. So the little I do "know" is from overhearing and from school which is not consistant with "Canadian" french.

No offense intended.

La paix à vous

[pmcleanj]

Bonjour!hehe! Sorry, I was trying to make a point. I did, however state that I know "LITTLE" french - although as you point out, I made an error in my french canadian translation to that point.

But you did at least manage to make the accents and circumflex. I'm not really computer-illiterate, but that's one of the niceties of posting that I've never figured out.

[hsilgne]

But you did at least manage to make the accents and circumflex. I'm not really computer-illiterate, but that's one of the niceties of posting that I've never figured out.

You need to(at least on my computer) go and "tell" the computer you are using a "french Canadian" keyboard.

Good Luck!

[KEPLER]

1 Nun wir denn sind gerecht geworden durch den Glauben, so haben wir Frieden mit Gott durch unsern HERRN Jesus Christus,

Translated from the Luther Bibel 1545:

now we are fairly become by the faith, then we have peace with God through Jesus Christ.

Good reply. Most excellent.

A minor quibble with the translation: it wants to be stronger. "gerecht geworden" is a pretty strong contruction: it implies a past action action that has been completed, so: made righteous. "durch den Glauben" is also pretty strong...it's an accusative contruction that pretty much excludes anything but what is listed: "through the faith".

"Now having been made righteous through [the] faith, therefore we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Curiously, other than the "exclusive" nature of the accusative construction, there is no word alone (allein; einsam) present anywhere...:scratch:

Hmm, imagine that.

Kepler

[LutherNut]

Malheureusment, (que veut dire "unfortunately" en anglais), le mot pour "little" est "un peu de". Vous utilisez la forme "S'il vous plaît", alors il faut que vous utilisez aussi la forme "vous" dans l'imperatif: repondez, pas "respond".

D'ou en Canada venez vous? Pas de Quebec, je croix!;) Mais, mois n'en plus; je viens d'Alberta.

Et, meme si je suis du plus du moins bilingue en francais, j'ai aussi apprene un peu d'allemandais. Si on veut dire quelque chose en comment Luther a tranduisie la Bible, on doit peut-etre comprends un peu de la lange danse laquelle il la a tranduisie, n'est-ce pas?

Comment fait-on la cedille, la circonflexe, et les autres accents? Je crois que j'ecrit en francais meilleurs par stilo!

I ran this through an online translator... and I laughed out loud!
I guess it really loses something in the "translation".


Unfortunately, (that means "Unfortunately" in English), the word for "Little" is " little of ". You use form "Please ", then it is necessary that you also use form "you" in imperative: answer, not "Respond".
Where from in Canada come to you? No Quebec, me crucifix! But, month not on top of that; I come from Alberta.
And, even if I am of the most least bilingual in French, I also have learn little of allemandais. If they want to tell anything there how Luther has tranduisie the Bible, they owe perhaps understand little of wrap in swaddling clothes it dance which he has it tranduisie, is not it?
How do they make the cedilla, circumflex, and other accents? I think that I ecrit in French better by fountain pen!

[pmcleanj]

I ran this through an online translator... and I laughed out loud!
I guess it really loses something in the "translation".
:D Oh, too funny! It does a good job of picking up the spelling errors, though -- "croix" instead of "crois", "mois" instead of "moi". I should use that technique to check my work next time I work up the courage to post in French.

[KagomeShuko]

All those darn accents. My sister seems to know all the ASCII codes for those things (Alt+a series of numbers). I don't know 'em. I have to look at the key stroke guide or whatever it is called in the accessories menu.

Ah, je besoin etudier francais. J'ai etude' francais pour six ans dans l'ecole, mais je n'est pas etudier francais maintenant. J'ai pense' pour dix seconds pour le mot "jaune" parce que en television un homme dit, "What color jersey is awarded to the leader of the Tour de Frace?"

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Cary.Melvin]

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579

Of the Antichrist
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

[Adopted 1932]

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.)


I was unaware that this was the LCMS official position! huh. But if the pope believes that Jesus is the Christ, then how could he be... antichrist? What do y'all think?

Doesn't the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification Clear Up this mis-understanding?

[Tetzel]

Doesn't the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification Clear Up this mis-understanding?
No. Not all Lutherans are represented by the LWF. None of the churches represented in this sub-forum are part of the LWF. Furthermore, I've noticed that many Roman Catholics don't care at all about the Joint Declaration and that even among those who do acknowledge the declatation, both sides of the issue carry different interpretations of the declaration. So it is not worth the paper it's printed on.

[BigNorsk]

Good reply. Most excellent.

A minor quibble with the translation: it wants to be stronger. "gerecht geworden" is a pretty strong contruction: it implies a past action action that has been completed, so: made righteous. "durch den Glauben" is also pretty strong...it's an accusative contruction that pretty much excludes anything but what is listed: "through the faith".

"Now having been made righteous through [the] faith, therefore we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Curiously, other than the "exclusive" nature of the accusative construction, there is no word alone (allein; einsam) present anywhere...:scratch:

Hmm, imagine that.

Kepler

Luther specifically adresses that complaint, indeed that very phrase in his writing "On Translating (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt)". He makes it quite clear that to leave off the "alone" would be poor German.

People seem to have this rather strange notion that the best job of translating is always count the words and produce the same number in the translation. If that was the case, we would just put the words in a computer and have it spit out the best translation.

Marv

[ByzantineDixie]

Luther specifically adresses that complaint, indeed that very phrase in his writing "On Translating (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt)". He makes it quite clear that to leave off the "alone" would be poor German.


Kep--you are a smart guy...well educated and the like. Don't know how much German you have studied though. Have you ever read "On Translating"? I would be quite interested in your take on it.

Another couple of questions...now not talking theology here...just translation. While the allein seemed necessary to Luther in the German...was it necessary (translation wise) to include it in English...and why? I found when I studied German that I would often not put the word allein in a English to German translation because the world "alone" was not in the English text but I noticed that my instructor would...that's why I ask if it really was necessary to include the word in the English translation.

Thanks for your insight on this.

Dixie

[KEPLER]

Kep--you are a smart guy...well educated and the like. Don't know how much German you have studied though. Have you ever read "On Translating"? I would be quite interested in your take on it.
Right! Don't confuse "educated" with "smart". :D

No I have not read "On translating" (I know, Scott...more spankings). But I plan to, since Marv provided me with a link. Perhaps this weekend, and I can give a report.
Another couple of questions...now not talking theology here...just translation. While the allein seemed necessary to Luther in the German...was it necessary (translation wise) to include it in English...and why? I found when I studied German that I would often not put the word allein in a English to German translation because the world "alone" was not in the English text but I noticed that my instructor would...that's why I ask if it really was necessary to include the word in the English translation.

Thanks for your insight on this.

Dixie

Hmmm, well, the difficulty I have with this is, Ich kann ein bisschen Duetsch sprechen, maar niet so wel. Mij Nederlandse taal is veel beter!

When I try to speak/write German, I tend to "fall" into Dutch.

Anyways, I can understand why when translating G-->E, someone might be tempted to add "alone" in the English, because the accustative contruction (durch den Glaube) is very strong: it really does imply: through this (and nothing else!)

But as for translating E-->G, it seems that adding "allein" is...

Well, if we say in English, "through faith", that does not necessarily imply: and nothing else. The English construction simply is not as exclusive as the German is. So I can't see why your professor would add "allein" if going from E-->G, and the E didn't have it.

Greek also uses an accustaive structure, but in all honesty, my Greek isn't close to good enough to make such a judgment. Filo should know.

Kepler

[Simon_Templar]

> That in itself means nothing. Even Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ.

oh yeah, you have a good point there! lol.

So that must be why I always get warned when I post scripture over in OBOB, cuz they're antichrist (based on lcms doctrine) and thus despise the scriptures. A couple times I've posted straight-up words of Christ, not even adding any comments of my own, and the post got deleted..... huh. learn something new everyday.


Perhaps this is because all of the forums have rules which specificly forbid debating doctrinal issues if you are not a member of the deonomination. Perhaps it isn't the content that is getting your posts deleted, but the intent.

[ILoveYeshua]

Perhaps this is because all of the forums have rules which specificly forbid debating doctrinal issues if you are not a member of the deonomination. Perhaps it isn't the content that is getting your posts deleted, but the intent.


truth be the intent, of posting Christ's words

[FLA2760]

Excellent point... therefore faith alone obviously, is not enough to save our souls.
Hi
Actually we are saved by faith alone. (Eph 2:8,9) When we put our faith in Christ's sacrificial death, his burial, and resurrection we are saved. ( 1 Cor 15 1-4) At the moment of belief we are SEALED with the Holy Spirit unto the Day of redemption, (Eph 4:30) God sets His seal of ownership on us! Jesus said in John 5:24 " I tell you the TRUTH, whoever BELIEVES him who sent me HAS eternal life and WILL NOT be condemmed; he has CROSSED OVER from death to LIFE" NIV. The Apostle Paul speaking of our position in Christ wrote; "giving thanks to the Father who has QUALIFIED US to be partakers of the INHERITANCE of the saints in light. He HAS DELIVERED US from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the SON of His love, in whom WE HAVE REDEMPTION through HIS BLOOD, the FORGIVENESS of sins.(COL 1:12-14)
GOD BLESS

[Ethan_Fetch]

I never thought the confessional accusation that the Papacy was anti-christ had much to do with Sola Fide.

I thought it had to do with the powers and privileges arrogated to that position by it's occupants, effectively setting themselves up as "godlings", or, probably more accurately, their effective ignorance of Christ, the office itself being little more than a bauble for the noble families of Europe to hand around to one another..

[Lacko]

Exactly.

The Office of the Papacy claimimg to be Christ's Vicar on Earth is reason enough for it to be termed an Anti-Christ.

The Office of the Papacy basically is stating it has the power and the authority the Holy Spirit only has.

Therefore, the office is against Christ.

I, full heartedly, agree with this statement and I think it is in fact the LCMS position.

As a bit of a side question,
LOL by agreeing with this did I just break one, or several, of the official rules?

[Tetzel]

I never thought the confessional accusation that the Papacy was anti-christ had much to do with Sola Fide.

I thought it had to do with the powers and privileges arrogated to that position by it's occupants, effectively setting themselves up as "godlings", or, probably more accurately, their effective ignorance of Christ, the office itself being little more than a bauble for the noble families of Europe to hand around to one another..

If you see preaching anything other than sola fide as leading people to their destruction, the two are quite related.

[judaica]

We should be careful to note here that this is speaking of the office of the papacy, not about individual men. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Bendict XVI) may indeed be a child of God, who are we to judge his heart? But the office stands in opposition to Christ's intent for the Church.

Kepler

I never understood that distinction. How could God allow a child of His to essentially occupy the office of the Anti-Christ?
In addition, to occupy an office is to carry out the role of that office. So for a person to occupy the office of the Anti-Christ, they would also be carrying out the goals of the Anti-Christ, and could not therefore, be considered christian.

Judaica

[judaica]

That in itself means nothing.
Even Satan and demons believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Yes, but they do not confess Him. Scripture tells us that whoever denies Christ is of God has the spirit of the Anti-Christ. The papacy has never, even in its darkest days, denied this.

Judaica

[night2day]

I never understood that distinction. How could God allow a child of His to essentially occupy the office of the Anti-Christ?

There are true believers in Jesus Christ who span throughout Christiandom regardless of denomination. Martin Luther refered to this as the "Invisible Church" of which there are no unbelievers. It's termed as "invisible" since only God can see who truly is a part of the Church.

However, of these Christians there are those who also believe, teach, and confess false doctrines and teachings. Among these would include doctrines which deny the Biblical teachings of Orginal Sin, the Real Presence of the Lord's Supper, Infant Baptism, Theology of the Cross, promotion of the "Rapture", etc. Yet, by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ as their Savior....they are indeed believers in Him.

The reason why the Bible tells us to be wary of false teachings is it has the danger of leading us away from faith in Christ. Simply because of this unbiblical teachings should not be dismissed casually with "we all have Jesus" and that's the end of it. Biblical doctrine is important because the Bible makes it important. By the same token, while the risks of endangering faith in Christ are higher, that doesn't been true faith is not
present.

To give an example, a pope may very well hold that salvation comes by grace, through faith, through Jesus Christ alone and there is nothing he can do to earn it. However, he occupies an office as well as is a head of denomination which has countered this claim in centuries' past such as what was proclaimed at the Council of Trent (which labeled all those who believe they are justified by faith in Christ as condemned). The pope himself would be a Christian. The office itself, however, is positioned against Christ and is therefore not. The pope in this hypothetical situation would not be truly holding to the teachings of his denomination of course and would actually be technically in conflict with them.

In the end however, who is it the pope answers too, God or the Catholic church? The above pope has his sins forgiven and completely cleansed by Christ's blood as all believers in Him do.

In addition, to occupy an office is to carry out the role of that office. So for a person to occupy the office of the Anti-Christ, they would also be carrying out the goals of the Anti-Christ, and could not therefore, be considered christian.

How so? One should consider in times past there have been instances where God has placed His people in places and situations where He works through them to bring about His glory. It's not something we can always understand. Neither do we always see the actual outcome of His work.

Are we to point out herasy and doctrinal
errors where they's found? Indeed we are. However, to state an individidual is not Christian because of a certain office is not...is akin to stating any one of us can look within an individual's heart and state with 100% certainty where that person's faith lies within. And none but
God can do this.

All we can do is note and respond to is what is outwardly seen, confessed, and professed...and compare/contrast this with Biblical teaching.

[LutherNut]

Yes, but they do not confess Him. Scripture tells us that whoever denies Christ is of God has the spirit of the Anti-Christ. The papacy has never, even in its darkest days, denied this.

Judaica

But that's not the lone definition of antichrist.
The ultimate is the message of the Gospel, that Jesus Christ, God incarnate, suffered and died for the forgiveness of sins and whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. Does that equate with confessing that Christ is of God, or does it entail something more than that?
Muslims will confess that Jesus Christ is of God, but they are not saved. It's confessing that Jesus Christ is of God and that He did what He did for us with no merit on our part, and fully believing that, that is the key here.

The papacy does indeed confess that Jesus Christ is of God, but it also claims that of itself, and demands belief in that as well for salvation, or else one is condemned. And that, by definition, is antichrist.


The Unshod One:P

[night2day]

...Muslims will confess that Jesus Christ is of God, but they are not saved. It's confessing that Jesus Christ is of God and that He did what He did for us with no merit on our part, and fully believing that, that is the key here...

Technically, Muslims reduce Jesus (who they term as "Isa") as a mere prophet, but also the second greatest prophet after Muhommed. One with correct teachings on how to live. But certainly not God.

Islam within it's various forms is a works-oriented religion. In fact, every belief system outside of Christianity is works-oriented in one form or another. It's all it can be.

Christianity teaches Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and God Himself. Which, therefore, is the only way Jesus would have been able too be able to live a perfect life under the Law in our stead, and choose to pay the ultimate price for our not being able to do so. Any normal human being, because they are by nature sinful would not be able to even attempt such a thing. Jesus was not a normal human, He was also God Himself.

So, wouldn't that make the key alot more basic: Being brought to faith in who Jesus was and is...and what He has done for us?

As noted, It's more than knowing of Jesus' existance or acknowledging why some claim He came. One needs to have faith. And only the Holy Spirit can work this within a person.

[ricg]

Yes, but they do not confess Him. Scripture tells us that whoever denies Christ is of God has the spirit of the Anti-Christ. The papacy has never, even in its darkest days, denied this.

Judaica

I believe that the Confessions regard the passage speaking of the deniers of Christ as having the spirit of the antichrist as referring to the many antichrists as opposed to the capital "A" unique Anti-Christ described elsewhere in Scripture.

It is also worth noting that the word Antichrist is greek, not latin, so the "anti," as I understand it, carries the meaning "in place of" rather than the simpler latin meaning we associate with the term, i.e., "opposing." Of course, context makes clear that the Antichrist also opposes Christ. I only point this out, because the greek term seems to correspond with the self-proclaimed role of the pope as "Vicar of Christ," though one shouldn't read to much into that.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

deleted

[TheCosmicGospel]

Doesn't the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification Clear Up this mis-understanding?

Dr. Daniel Preus responds to this document with his take. Read it if you like. Justification is a total encompassment of what happens in the church, not just a word shift that can be "re-translated" in word semantics. Dr. Preus points out that the historical positions of Trent remain and are the barriers to reaching any consensus soon.

Luther and the Mass by Dr. Daniel Preus

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic


We are here to serve God, not solve God. - Cosmic

[Studeclunker]

Luther did himself proclaim the Pope to be an anti-Christ. Whether or not this office is the Antichrist mentioned in, for instance, Revelations, we have yet to see.

I have no other choice than to take the position of; 'the Roman Catholic church is in serious error. They are a Christian institution. The Papal office is, in and of itself, a problem. They remain in this, and many other errors, and refuse to correct them. However, the majority of Roman Catholics are truely Christian in all aspects of the definition.'

Martin Luther did confess that he didn't have all the answers. To those he did have, he said, "Here I stand, I can do no other."

This has been an interesting thread. It revealed that there is still a lot of hurt between the Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Some of the remarks made, though instructive, have been... unhelpful. There has, however, been a running battle between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches that can't be ignored. So, I suppose a few inflamitory remarks are to be expected.

Some of the remarks posted by our RC brother were instructive and interesting. I, for one, appreciated the other view.

Is the Pope the Antichrist? Well, I can't say. Regardless of what has been written on the subject. There is one thing I will say though. I'm sure all of you have heard the saying, "Your goose is cooked!" As in to say that one has been caught and about to be severely punished. What most may not know, is that the German word for goose is Hess. And Hess was Luther's predecessor in the Reformation. The Pope ordered the man burnt at the stake for espousing the same ideas that Luther did. Hence the German saying, "Your Goose is cooked!" And Martin Luther's understandable fear for his own life. The German people weren't referring to the bird, but the man. The Roman Catholics have demonstrated that they will exercise deadly force when they have the power. They still squash any other denomination where they have the sway of the government to this very day. Severity may have changed, intent though, remains the same.

With all the errors our RC brothers and sisters, espouse, at least they didn't institute 'biblical chriticism', a uniquely Lutheran viewpoint, nor do they actively, openly, worship Ashera in any of thier churches. We, as Lutherans, should be very careful of throwing bricks in glass houses. Our (as in general denomination, all the acronyms together) corporate laundry isn't very clean either.

The various Lutheran houses need to communicate better between themselves and to bring into correction the brothers and sisters that have strayed. Let the Antichrist take care of himself. The Lord will put him in play when it suits him. We have a more important job to concentrate on right now.:groupray:

[TheCosmicGospel]

Luther reached a theological conclusion based on Scripture. If we are going to grapple with the terms, let us at least understand what was at stake. For Luther, justification was everything. The church stood or fell if it was gained or lost. Anyone willing to address the bare conclusion and the afronting label must first recognize what was at stake: justification, the work of the cross, the Church.

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic

We are to serve God, not solve God - Cosmic

[Studeclunker]

Well said Cosmic.:amen:

[Annova]

Well I'm not going to debate this.

I'm a Wels Lutheran so that pretty much says what I believe. And no I don't believe in the Catholic ways or that the Pope is the successor.

I mean with all the Pope's throughout the years, how is it decided who's the successor? Are they all? :scratch:

[walloffire]

We are to serve God, not solve God - Cosmic

Well-put

We are to love God with???????
---ALL our heart
---ALL our mind
---ALL our soul
---ALL our strength

AND the second is like it: Love your neighbor AS yourSELF