A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[Peter_J]

That is true. However, we do not have a view of eschatology that says there will be the Anti-Christ at some point in the future. So I guess you have it divorce it from the dispensationalist distortions of end times junk.

If so, then there can be no Lutheran objection to altering the official documents to say that “the Papacy is anti-Christ” or “the Papacy is an anti-Christ” – rather than “the Papacy is the anti-Christ” – correct? That would just be stating what you (plural) always really believed, right? (Even better, perhaps it should be changed to “Such-and-such theory of the Papacy is heretical, so like all heresies it is anti-Christ.”)

 

[Peter_J]

God didn’t write them. So to you, they are purely human documents, right?

No. God didn’t write them, but he inspired human beings to write them, so they cannot be called “purely human documents”.

God didn’t know which Scripture belonged in the canon, so He needed the Church to decide it?

Certainly not. But the same logic one could say that God didn’t know what to write in Scripture, so He needed human being to decide.

I would say that those men who decided which books to call “Scripture” (more specifically “the New Testament”) used their own knowledge of the faith and also were guided by the Holy Spirit to choose the right books – very much like those wrote those books to being with.

 

[SD_Catholic]

God didn’t write them. So to you, they are purely human documents, right? God didn’t know which Scripture belonged in the canon, so He needed the Church to decide it?

Oh brother. Can’t ever discuss an issue without it becoming personal, right?

The problem is you trying to make your faulty statements go away by twisting my words to make it look like I said something I didn’t… That my friend is where you made it personal…

You already know this, but so you can’t miscommunicate my words again I’ll write it down… I believe God used MEN to write Scripture… for me to say God USED MEN should tell you that I believe he inspired them to write down the messages he wanted to get through to his people… I know you already knew this but you seem to want to make argument where there is none:shrug:

You were the one that seemed to be making a case that God didn’t use men or a Church for anything, when in fact he absolutely used these people to get his message into writing and eventually into a book. You are right about one thing though… he didn’t NEED these people to do this, but he CHOSE to… He didn’t need the Apostles either, but he chose to use them.

SD

 

[TriuneUnity]

If so, then there can be no Lutheran objection to altering the official documents to say that “the Papacy is anti-Christ” or “the Papacy is an anti-Christ” – rather than “the Papacy is the anti-Christ” – correct? That would just be stating what you (plural) always really believed, right? (Even better, perhaps it should be changed to “Such-and-such theory of the Papacy is heretical, so like all heresies it is anti-Christ.”)

That’s true. Though most of the Synods in America have addressed and clarified what the Confessions mean in a modern context.

 

[TriuneUnity]

No. God didn’t write them, but he inspired human beings to write them, so they cannot be called “purely human documents”.

Well, yes, He didn’t write them in the sense that He didn’t pen them. However, what they wrote are the words that God gave them to write (in a non-dictatorial way). Therefore, they are the very words of God.

Certainly not. But the same logic one could say that God didn’t know what to write in Scripture, so He needed human being to decide.

I would say that those men who decided which books to call “Scripture” (more specifically “the New Testament”) used their own knowledge of the faith and also were guided by the Holy Spirit to choose the right books – very much like those wrote those books to being with.

I would agree with you up to the last statement. The process of inspiration required a direct revelation from God; receiving the canon did not. Even Rome acknowledges this. Guidance yes, revelation, no. Besides, by Rome’s own standard of the charism of infallibility… this didn’t come about until the Council of Trent. The councils prior to Trent were not ecumenical, therefore, did not possess the supposed charism.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You were the one that seemed to be making a case that God didn’t use men or a Church for anything, when in fact he absolutely used these people to get his message into writing and eventually into a book. You are right about one thing though… he didn’t NEED these people to do this, but he CHOSE to… He didn’t need the Apostles either, but he chose to use them.

SD

No; what I said was that the ultimate author of Scripture is God. Therefore, it wasn’t required for the Church to authenticate it. God’s inspiring of the text alone makes it authentic. The Church is passive in receiving the text. It didn’t “make” the text canonical, since the text was inspired canon as soon as it was written.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say that those men who decided which books to call “Scripture” (more specifically “the New Testament”) used their own knowledge of the faith and also were guided by the Holy Spirit to choose the right books – very much like those wrote those books to being with.

Perhaps “very much” was a poor choice of words.

Basically, I meant that in both cases, human beings relied on both their own knowledge and intellect and the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Besides, by Rome’s own standard of the charism of infallibility… this didn’t come about until the Council of Trent. The councils prior to Trent were not ecumenical, therefore, did not possess the supposed charism.

I don’t know what you mean.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s true. Though most of the Synods in America have addressed and clarified what the Confessions mean in a modern context.

Can you provide a link?

 

[Peter_J]

TU,

Can you provide a link?

Actually, I have found a clarification, but not the sort you’re talking about (much less JonNC’s proposal):

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=12503

 

[TriuneUnity]

Perhaps “very much” was a poor choice of words.

Basically, I meant that in both cases, human beings relied on both their own knowledge and intellect and the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Fair enough. I won’t quibble on that one.

I don’t know what you mean.

Meaning that no council infallibly defined the canon until Trent (since according to Roman definition, the charism of infallibility applies to ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements of the Pope). The earlier councils were provincial and applied authoritatively only in the dioceses in which they were governed; Hippo, Carthage, Rome. Although from what I understand, Pope Damasus agreed with their ruling so I am not sure how far out they authoritatively went.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU,

Actually, I have found a clarification, but not the sort you’re talking about (much less JonNC’s proposal):

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=12503

Ah…okay…Well, if the LCMS identifies that THE Anti-Christ will be a Pope, I would disagree with that position. At least as the situation in the world stands now. It could change again, of course, but considering the anti-Catholic fervor of much of the secular world it probably isn’t likely.

 

[SPH1]

If the doctrine of the papacy is false, then it is a doctrine of anti-Christ.

How so? Because Luther said it? If the Papacy is true, then does that make you anti-Christ?

My old “Creeds” page listed various church groups that still held the Pope to be the anti-christ and/or the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon: catholic-view.com/creeds.html

I think the quote from Cardinal Newman said it best:

"So was it at the time of the Reformation; the multitude would never have been converted by exact reasoning and by facts which could be proved; so its upholders were clever enough to call the Pope Antichrist, and they let the startling accusation sink into men’s minds. Nothing else would have succeeded; and they pursue the same tactics now. No inferior charge, I say, would have gained for them the battle; "

In other words, propaganda.

 

[SPH1]

Ah…okay…Well, if the LCMS identifies that THE Anti-Christ will be a Pope, I would disagree with that position. At least as the situation in the world stands now. It could change again, of course, but considering the anti-Catholic fervor of much of the secular world it probably isn’t likely.

Yea, and should the Pope/Papacy turn out to not be anti-Christ, will an apology be forthcoming?

 

[TriuneUnity]

How so? Because Luther said it? If the Papacy is true, then does that make you anti-Christ?

Yes, it would. And no, not because Luther said it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You mean there is more than one like this?

SD

sure! many more.

 

[SD_Catholic]

No; what I said was that the ultimate author of Scripture is God. Therefore, it wasn’t required for the Church to authenticate it. God’s inspiring of the text alone makes it authentic. The Church is passive in receiving the text. It didn’t “make” the text canonical, since the text was inspired canon as soon as it was written.

Well… actually you didn’t use those words till now… but OK.

Basically all you’re saying here is Scripture is inspired… a non-issue because we agree… but you seem to be skipping over the fact that MEN were involved in deciding which “texts” were actually the ones that would be included in the Bible… No these men didn’t rewrite, re-inspire, or reauthorize these writings, but they did have to decide if the writings they mulled over were actually inspired or not…you do realize there were some writings that didn’t make it in there don’t you?

Do you honestly believe there were no decisions made by men regarding which books (or text) would be included in the Bible? I would sincerely appreciate an answer to this question as it would definitely help me realize your point of view… perhaps I’ve been confused on your stance all along???

I think if you could answer this one yes or no I would leave the thread alone as we’ve already stole it from JonNC.

SD

 

[Peter_J]

Ah…okay…Well, if the LCMS identifies that THE Anti-Christ will be a Pope, I would disagree with that position. At least as the situation in the world stands now. It could change again, of course, but considering the anti-Catholic fervor of much of the secular world it probably isn’t likely.

If I might editorialize a little, it seems to me the from an ecumenical p.o.v. the Roman Catholic hierarchy has cleaned up their act over the last few centuries, whereas the LCMS is still stuck in the 16th century.

P.S. Before anyone can use this to argue against me, let me add that I don’t see any contradiction between what I just said and what I said recently to vineyardgirl:

I think there’s a lot “ecumenical chauvinism” out there – by which I mean, among other things, Christians who are always talking about tolerance for differing believes, but who have absolutely no tolerance for anyone (e.g. Catholics) who dares to call themselves the one true church.

 

[JonNC]

I think if you could answer this one yes or no I would leave the thread alone as we’ve already stole it from JonNC.

SD

So long as everyone remains charitable (ie. we are all Christian brethren who love each other but have doctrinal disagreements),
steal away.
Jon

 

[rinnie]

[TriuneUnity]

Yes,because we will be judged by our works,not by faith alone.

It isn’t in contradiction to the Word. Who before Luther said that we are saved by faith alone?

Exactly why do people believe Luther. Why do they not understand before Luther was the Catholic Church. Luther turned away from the church, he wanted to do things his way, and the Catholic Church will not do that for anyone. That is why it will never change it cant. Only God can change the church. And lets look at works and faith this way. If I say boy look at those people they are so poor and hungry someone should set some food on their door. and I do nothing meanwhile I have tons of food in my pantry what is God going to say to me. Now on the other hand I say boy those People really need help tonight when everyone goes to bed i am going to sneak over there and not let anyone see and leave some food. No one will know it was me. What is God going to say to me? Now If I go over because I know that is what God would want me to do that is Grace (knowing what the right thing to do is) and works doing Gods work because its the right thing to do. Feed those in trouble. Now heres the point KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT. Thats whats God is saying, but on the other hand if I were to go over because I think it would get me into heaven there is no Grace, and then tell everyone I had to go feed them people its worthless. See what I mean, Like God said if were to tell the world what I did, like God says you already got your reward. But to help those in trouble because you know thats what God wants you to do especially when its hard and you really dont want to. Now thats Gods work. When you put others above yourself because you know thats the right thing to do Now thats the way it works together. But what good is it to just not help anyone, to see someone struggle and not help when you can, now thats when God will say where were your works. what good did it do to say i feel real bad. Then its worthless! Thats having the Grace to help but not using it, what good did that grace do for you, Thats why Grace without works is useless!

 

[JonNC]

And lets look at works and faith this way. If I say boy look at those people they are so poor and hungry someone should set some food on their door. and I do nothing meanwhile I have tons of food in my pantry what is God going to say to me. Now on the other hand I say boy those People really need help tonight when everyone goes to bed i am going to sneak over there and not let anyone see and leave some food. No one will know it was me. What is God going to say to me? Now If I go over because I know that is what God would want me to do that is Grace (knowing what the right thing to do is) and works doing Gods work because its the right thing to do. Feed those in trouble. Now heres the point KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT. Thats whats God is saying, but on the other hand if I were to go over because I think it would get me into heaven there is no Grace, and then tell everyone I had to go feed them people its worthless. See what I mean, Like God said if were to tell the world what I did, like God says you already got your reward. But to help those in trouble because you know thats what God wants you to do especially when its hard and you really dont want to. Now thats Gods work. When you put others above yourself because you know thats the right thing to do Now thats the way it works together. But what good is it to just not help anyone, to see someone struggle and not help when you can, now thats when God will say where were your works. what good did it do to say i feel real bad. Then its worthless! Thats having the Grace to help but not using it, what good did that grace do for you, Thats why Grace without works is useless!

This sounds so “Lutheran” to me. Your scenario is exactly what a Lutheran would say. "I am saved by grace through faith. As a result, I allow the Holy Spirit to work through me to do His good works. I claim no merit for it, because it is His works. This is an active faith. A dead faith cannot save, only an active faith saves.

I have lifted this quote that TriuneUnity put up on another thread:

I will quote a famed Lutheran expositor to answer this question. He just answers it better than I

"Turn from a merely verbal faith, for a faith that exhausts itself in words is as useless as a charity that exhausts itself in gracious phrases (v. 14–16); turn from a faith that is in reality no faith at all, but dead (v. 17) and unable to save. (v. 14)

Turn: Cease trying to excuse yourselves with a pious sophistry which makes an impossible cleavage between faith and works by distributing them as several gifts, faith to one man, works to another (v. 18); this reduces faith to a merely intellectual grasp of truths about God—demons have that kind of faith, and they know that it cannot save them; they shudder at the judgment that is to come upon them. (v.19)

Turn from this delusion about your barren faith, a faith as impotent and inactive as a corpse (vv. 20, 26). Turn to that faith which is a living faith and must needs evince itself in works (v. 18), a faith which justifies because it is a faith that commits a man wholly to his God and is therefore a working faith, such a faith as Abraham’s was: he was ready to give to God the best gift God had given him, his son. Abraham’s faith was active in his works and found its fullest expression in works (v. 21–22). In the fact that believing Abraham showed in deed that he held God dearer than God’s dearest gift there was seen the full meaning of the words, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (v. 23). Abraham, the believing friend of God, was friend in word and deed, and so one can even say that man is justified by works and not by faith alone, for faith is never alone, as even the example of Rahab shows: Hers was a simple and unfinished faith, and yet this believing woman, with her stained and ruined past, acted out her faith in works, and she too was thus justified by works as one whose faith made her the doer of the will of God. (v. 25)

Turn to the faith which is the creation of the God who is God of the living and not of the dead, a faith that is a body animated by a living soul, not a corpse." (Roehrs, Walter R.; and Franzmann, Martin H., Concordia Self-Study Commentary, (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House) 1988, c1979.)

BTW, thanks, TU for posting this originally.

Jon