Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[Starwarsfan2]

I did note that.

As you know since you pointed it out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

In this statement, the Church IS being “inclusive” and “charitable” - the very things you seemed to suggest that we are not being by standing by that position. If we were being exclusive and uncharitable, we would insist that only formal Catholics could be saved, wouldn’t we?

Conversely, as you know because it has been pointed out, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod specifically states:

OF THE ANTICHRIST

**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.)

Now, in this statement, the LCMS is being anything but charitable and inclusive, and I reject all attempts to explain this away. If all that scripture teaches concerning the anti-Christ is fulfilled in the office of the papacy, then what does that say about the Church that maintains that office and follows the leadership of the man who holds that office?

You can’t spin this, Jon. Either own it or reject it.

Indeed, you may not even be a Confessional Lutheran if you do not hold that the papacy is the antichrist:

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). (Source.)

But if you do reject it and you are no longer considered a Confessional Lutheran in good standing, then why would you want to continue being a member of the “church” that teaches this lie about your brothers and sisters in Christ?

They teach that the office of the papacy is the antichrist , however they view Catholics as true Christians , and teach that the person in the office is a Christian , they simply disagree with Catholics , they are NOT intentionally teaching lies about anyone, and you can be a Confessional Litheran wthout teaching that the pope or papacy is the anti Christ , I’d say that is more kind than the stuff you are saying to Jon .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

When you say MOST Lutherans do not accept that the Pope (Or his office which quite frankly is equally ludicrous) is the AntiChrist can you list the Lutherans that do not believe this and their synods or whatever their designation may be?
I highly doubt the ELCA does but then other Lutherans here don’t seem to feel they are confessional in nature?

If you don’t subscribe to this doctrine of the devil then why would you care that Catholics find it ridiculous and a man made doctrine? I imagine if you don’t believe this then perhaps you feel it’s ridiculous too? Let us know what you think about some Lutherans teaching the Pope (his office) is in the seat of the anti Christ.

What synod are you in or type of Lutheran are you if you care to share that does not believe in this AntiChrist nonsense?

Peter’s profession of Faith is good for another thread for it’s off topic on this one.

Mary.

What do I think about other Confessional Lutherans , well for one they don’t hate Catholics , they view them as Christians, second I believe they are my brothers and sisters who don’t need the bullying they get , third it is not a doctrine of the devil to believe that the papacy is the Antichrist , it is just a point of disagreement, debate on the viewpoints merits , don’t revert to what topper s been doing .

 

[Topper17]

Representing is not setting. The councils set doctrine.

Which brings us back precisely to the validity of various ‘modern’ Councils. I am still waiting for an answer to my questions about the ‘authority’ of the Councils that were convened to produce the Lutheran Confessions. I would like to know whether they were viewed as being divinely led and infallible, or of human production and thus not infallible. If there is some shade of gray in between, I would like to understand the rational.

Again, not my point. My point is that the ECF’s would not have known the teaching of universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility ex cathedra. Their writing cannot reflect what they could not have envisioned, a split of the patriarchs, one on side, the rest on the other.

This is absolutely NOT TRUE. If anything, the Fathers spent a lot more time battling heresy than does the Church today. I have seen it said (but disagree) that the Arian heresy was an even bigger threat to Christianity than was Protestantism. The Early Church Fathers dealt with Arianism, and although never eradicated, it was battled mostly into the dustbin of history. If I remember correctly, one of the early Councils included more Arian Bishops than (what we would now call) orthodox. It was by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Church won the True Doctrine of Christ. So, the Fathers were more familiar with splits and heresy than are our leaders today, and much more concerned about it.

As I said, no Father would have thought that the papacy would claim universal jurisdiction, either.

At some point in the very near future Jon, we will all be buried in quotes from the Fathers which force a conclusion quite different than yours. I appreciate it though that you have placed a lot of chips on the table in the matter.

It isn’t me you have to prove it to. You have to prove it to the Eastern Orthodox first. If you can prove it to them, I will accept it.

The problem that I have with this Jon is that it makes you a complete leaf in the wind. IF those other two communions do this or that THEN you will change denominations. It is especially concerning in that we both KNOW that the chance that the EO and RCC will reunite during our lives is, well, slim to say the least. This means that you have very little responsibility if any responsibility for your own denominational future and leave it totally up to others. I don’t understand this at all, especially given you migrated INTO the LCMS, indicating that you are not philosophically opposed to changing communions. What this ‘attitude’ leaves out is that there is ANY chance that anything can be ‘proven’ to you, that is, short of something that we both know will not happen. I see this as being different than being open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Your statement makes it look like there is nothing, nothing that the Catholic Church could possibly ‘prove to you’. Is that true?

 

[MaryT777]

What do I think about other Confessional Lutherans , well for one they don’t hate Catholics , they view them as Christians, second I believe they are my brothers and sisters who don’t need the bullying they get , third it is not a doctrine of the devil to believe that the papacy is the Antichrist , it is just a point of disagreement, debate on the viewpoints merits , don’t revert to what topper s been doing .

I see we have another poster who likes talking about Topper LOL…
Oh well…so be it.

I admire Topper for speaking the truth boldly.

Mary.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I see we have another poster who likes talking about Topper LOL…
Oh well…so be it.

I admire Topper for speaking the truth boldly.

Mary.

I actually enjoy talking to topper , just sometimes he gets a bit excessive with his way of getting his point across ( something I need to work on too , forgive me if I was being I bit rude earlier) .

 

[MaryT777]

I actually enjoy talking to topper , just sometimes he gets a bit excessive with his way of getting his point across ( something I need to work on too , forgive me if I was being I bit rude earlier) .

We all have different posting styles here. You’ll get used to us LOL. You are not rude nor do I think Topper is rude either. I appreciate the different style of all the posters. It would be dull to read a list of same way of speaking posts in my opinion.

As different as Catholic and Lutheran and as similar as two believing Christians…

Mary.

 

[Dorothy]

May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us all, and grant us all the graces we need to bring about unity!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Star,

Thanks for your response.

He did not hate he viewed it correctly as needing reform. And reform it he did, I repeat he NEVER hated the church.

Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards, among many others, disagrees with you. He tells us quite clearly that:

“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36

Interestingly, Luther would believe ME to be an ‘agent of Satan’.

It should be noted Star that Edwards is a very well respected Lutheran Scholar. He happens to be a former President of St. Olaf College (Lutheran), and also has taught at Harvard. In fact, he has written at least 4 books about Luther. As such, when you disagree with his conclusions about Luther, you are disagreeing with one of Lutheranism’s foremost Luther experts. Fair enough?

don’t revert to what topper s been doing .

I find this to be a disappointing comment Star. What would you have me do, allow all of that ‘sanitized’ “Luther didn’t hate Catholics” nonsense to go unchallenged. I wouldn’t have to do ‘this’ if Lutheranism had been doing a better job of portraying the actual Luther. Much of what I present here are FACTS, facts that you will never learn in your Lutheran churches. If you object to what I write, then much of your objection should be directed at Luther himself, because he is the one who did and taught this ‘stuff’. I am mostly just the messenger.

As for ‘Messenger Edwards’, he goes on to document Luther’s ‘charitable attitudes’ towards Catholics and you will be able to determine for himself if he should be accused of having an ‘anti-Luther bias’ or if he is simply reporting the historical facts (that have been in the past – underreported).

As we have seen in the past, Professor Mark U. Edwards is one of the most honest Lutheran Scholars on the issue of Luther’s intense condemnations:

“The papacy was no true authority at all but rather the antichrist. Hence normal considerations concerning resistance to superior authority did not apply to him. In fact, the papacy was a beast which all should resist as they would a possessed beast. “Thus.” Luther concluded in Thesis 66, ‘if the pope stirs up a war, he ought to be resisted just like a furious and possessed monster or a true werewolf.’ One should not be concerned if the pope has as his soldiers princes, kings, or even emperors themselves, enchanted by the name of the church. “For he who soldiers under a highwayman (whoever he may be) must expect the risk of his military service along with eternal damnation.’ Luther concluded. “Nor does it save kings, princes, or even emperors that they boast [that they are] defenders of the church, since they are obliged to know what the church is.” With this argument, Luther had provided a theological justification for resisting the emperor but only if he were acting in this apocalyptic context as a servant of the papal antichrist. For obvious reasons, the theses as a whole and the most relevant subsets were reprinted in both Latin and German in 1546 during the Schmalkaldic War.” Edwards, ‘Luther’s Last Battles’, pg. 34

We learn several things from this quote which are pertenant to our discussion about the Lutheran charge that the pope is the antichrist.

1. The papacy was a beast which should be resisted as such.
2. The papacy was like a furious and possessed monster or a true werewolf.
3. Luther almost always taught that authorities should be obeyed. However, it those authorities were in league with the antichrist, they should not be obeyed. This is of course based on his personally derived definition of the pope as the antichrist.
4. Those who served the antichrist in war would be rewarded with eternal damnation.
5. Kings and even Emperors were subject to this eternal damnation for military service to the pope, because – they should KNOW that he was the antichrist. (It SHOULD be obvious to them because it was sure obvious to Luther. The papacy of course had not rolled over and played dead when he proposed dozens and dozens of radical teachings.)
6. These texts of Luther were used during the Schmalkald war, and were printed in German to inflame the masses.

Interestingly, Luther was a huge contributing factor in the Peasants War, in which 100,000 peasants were slaughtered – to his delight and at least partially in response to his call to slaughter them without mercy. Of course he gets a pass for his role in stirring up that war, as he does generally for his role in stirring up the Schmalkald War.

 

[Topper17]

Edwards also comments about Luther’s hateful diatribe “Against the Papacy at Rome”.

“AT the heart of Luther’s ‘Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil’ lies his intense conviction that he was attacking the antichrist itself. Old age and illness may have made Luther less restrained and more verbose. But he was still able to follow a clear outline and develop a coherent historical, logical, and, above all, scriptural attack on the papacy. No, the explanation for this treatise is not found in his health but in his view of the world. It was his goal in this treatise to depict in the most vivid colors possible the true horrifying nature of the papacy. The pope was not and could not be the head of the Christian Church, the vicar of Christ. ‘Rather [he] is the head of the accursed church of the very worst rascals on earth; a destroyer of the church of Christ; a teacher of all lies, blasphemy, and idolatries; an arch-church-their and church robber of the keys [and] all brothel-keepers and all lewdness, including that which is not to be named; an antichrist; a man of sin and child of perdition; a true werewolf.’ Luther woud avail himself of every means of driving this conclusion home: logic, historical analysis, exegesis of Scripture, and verbal abuse.” Edwards, LLB, pg. 182-3

First of all, I personally find it to be shocking that anybody would have ever believed that this was a man of God, or a Reformer. What we learn here is that Luther was completely unrestrained, that he did not act like a man of God, and that his accusations against the Pope were extremely personal. While he ALSO accused the papacy of being the antichrist, he also included the individuals in that charge. After all, the “office” of the papacy cannot be a ‘man of sin, a child of perdition or a true werewolf.’

In this same document, Luther continues his rabid rant:

“Next one should take the pope, cardinals, and whatever servants there are of his idolatry and papal holiness, and rip out their toungues at roots (as blasphemers of God) and tail them on the gallows in the order in which their seals hang on the row on the bulls, although all this is insignificant [punishment] in relation to their blasphemy and idolatry. Next, let them hold a council or whatever they want on the gallows or in hell among all the devils. For they did not begin the accursed papacy out of ignorance or infirmity.” Edwards, “LLB”, pg 189

Luther’s mental health has been the subject of numerous studies, and for good reason. In this particular text, we see that his hatred has manifested itself as a recommendation to violence, which of course was not that unusual for the man. What I find particularily interesting though is that he believed that there was no accomdation here for beliefs other than his own. The people who ‘began’ the papacy and who fostered it, according to Luther, absolutely KNEW that they were doing so in league with Satan, which of course is a common theme in Luther’s polemics.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Do you really think we Lutherans are so shallow? Here’s one Lutheran response to Trent in four volumes.

http://www.faithalonejustifies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ExaminationTrent.jpg

Anybody can write a book, and probably millions could write a four volume set. The fact that Chemitz did doesn’t say anything about the quality of his thinking. He was, if I remember correctly, one of the Lutheran reformers who signed the document that accused the Pope of being the antichrist. As such, I can’t claim to be a fan. On the other hand, if you would like to post some of his writings on the subject of the antichrist, I think it would be a welcome addition to the thread. As you know, I like actual substance, actual facts, actual quotes, and find them to be much more illuminating than personal opinions.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Anybody can write a book, and probably millions could write a four volume set. The fact that Chemitz did doesn’t say anything about the quality of his thinking. He was, if I remember correctly, one of the Lutheran reformers who signed the document that accused the Pope of being the antichrist. As such, I can’t claim to be a fan. On the other hand, if you would like to post some of his writings on the subject of the antichrist, I think it would be a welcome addition to the thread. As you know, I like actual substance, actual facts, actual quotes, and find them to be much more illuminating than personal opinions.

God Bless You ben, Topper

I read the “Cliff Notes” version. Looks like Chemitz was as fond of the Papacy as your truly, Luther.

[PDF]Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification

www.wlsessays.net/files/PreusChemnitz.pdf

Chemnitz’ Examination of Trent or his Loci Theologici, it becomes … dense darkness and the putrid filth and cesspool of the Antichrist and to restore the.

 

[Randy_Carson]

They teach that the office of the papacy is the antichrist , however they view Catholics as true Christians , and teach that the person in the office is a Christian , they simply disagree with Catholics , they are NOT intentionally teaching lies about anyone, and you can be a Confessional Litheran wthout teaching that the pope or papacy is the anti Christ , I’d say that is more kind than the stuff you are saying to Jon .

So, by upholding and supporting the office of the papacy every time I donate to the annual Peter’s Pence collection, I’m supporting the anti-Christ.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Stars,

Thanks for your response.

Most do not teach that the pope is the antichrist , of those who do , they teach it out of concern , not of spite , in direct contrast to that is some people who run them into the ground.

This kind of reminds me of a time when we were discussing how Luther recommended that wives who were reluctant to have marital relations with their husbands should be executed by the state. (I couldn’t make this stuff up!). A defender of Luther told me that he recommended execution for those wives because he valued marriage so greatly and that he was only discharging his ‘pastoral duties’.

Needless to say I was pretty shocked. Luther decided that the pope was the antichrist out of his own personal interpretations and from his own tortured psyche. To say that he did so because of his ‘concern’, especially his concern for Catholics, whom he hated, is more than a stretch.

God Bless You Stars, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

It appears to me he hated most of everything about the Catholic Church. That said Catholics realize he had mental issues of scrupulosity that may have made him less culpable for his foul mouth and heretical teachings. That is for God to sort out of course.

Are you truly kidding me that Luther reformed the Church when you yourself say not all Lutherans believe the Pope is/sits in the seat of the anti Christ?

Lutherans are divided into synods with no altar and pulpit fellowship.(Wels, LCMS, ELCA and apparently other variations, I can’t keep them all straight)

You have ELCA Lutherans defending abortion, women ordination and homosexual relations and it seems now bizarre to be even focused on “Rome.”

I agree with Topper when he said time to have an Ecumenical Council among you Lutherans and come to Rome with one unified view.

Hopefully if there is voting on issues you guys can vote the Antichrist stuff out and that will help ecumenical issues.

Mary.

First of all, there is no way that any Lutheran here is going to touch my intra-Lutheran Council suggestion with a 10 foot pole. They are just as opposed to each other as they are to us, well - almost. The idea that they could ‘negotiate doctrine’ with those “other Lutherans” is ludicrous to each group. In fact, that Council is the only thing that could repair the self-inflicted damage that they have done to the unity of the Lutheran brand. Just watch, nobody is going to respond to that proposal. Better to simply complain about how the Catholic Church wont bend to their will. We really should jettison those ‘extra 5 Sacraments’ you know. That and a couple of dozen other meaningless issues and we could take the Holy Eucharist in an ELCA church. The LCMS still wouldn’t but we could.

The True Reformers of the Church actually STAYED in the Church and worked from within to improve it. Right from the very beginning, Luther was committed to bringing the Church down. The problem was that he had so little foresight that he didn’t realize that he was going to have to build some other kind of organization to put in its place. The result of that lack of planning ability is - yep you guessed it - Protestantism, in which nobody knows how many doctrinally competing and conflicting denominations there really are. (Its a LOT).

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

That’s true. He did hate the late arriving medieval institutions of the Roman Church. But not the church itself.

Untrue SS. How much evidence would you like to see that he hated the Church itself, from his own words?

 

[steido01]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Anybody can write a book, and probably millions could write a four volume set. The fact that Chemitz did doesn’t say anything about the quality of his thinking. He was, if I remember correctly, one of the Lutheran reformers who signed the document that accused the Pope of being the antichrist. As such, I can’t claim to be a fan. On the other hand, if you would like to post some of his writings on the subject of the antichrist, I think it would be a welcome addition to the thread. As you know, I like actual substance, actual facts, actual quotes, and find them to be much more illuminating than personal opinions.

God Bless You ben, Topper

False. Chemnitz was born in 1522. Smalcald was written in 1537. While fifteen year olds have been pope, they do not sign Lutheran documents. You’ll have to find a different reason to outright dismiss this brilliant thinker. Or, you know, you could actually read what “Second Martin” had to say. It’s been said that Lutheranism would’ve succombed to Reformed doctrines or reverted to Rome had it not been for Chemnitz’s great systematic works.

 

[Topper17]

I did note that.

As you know since you pointed it out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

In this statement, the Church IS being “inclusive” and “charitable” - the very things you seemed to suggest that we are not being by standing by that position. If we were being exclusive and uncharitable, we would insist that only formal Catholics could be saved, wouldn’t we?

Conversely, as you know because it has been pointed out, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod specifically states:

OF THE ANTICHRIST

**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.)

Now, in this statement, the LCMS is being anything but charitable and inclusive, and I reject all attempts to explain this away. If all that scripture teaches concerning the anti-Christ is fulfilled in the office of the papacy, then what does that say about the Church that maintains that office and follows the leadership of the man who holds that office?

You can’t spin this, Jon. Either own it or reject it.

Indeed, you may not even be a Confessional Lutheran if you do not hold that the papacy is the antichrist:

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). (Source.)

But if you do reject it and you are no longer considered a Confessional Lutheran in good standing, then why would you want to continue being a member of the “church” that teaches this lie about your brothers and sisters in Christ?

Hi Randy,

Thank you for this excellent and informative post. As you might know, I very much prefer hard facts over unsupported personal opinions. The idea that one is not a ‘confessional Lutheran’ unless they subscribe to the pope as being the antichrist certainly does up the ante doesn’t it?

At some point you would think that the silliness of that kind of thing would simply drag these communions down into obscurity. I just can’t imagine reasonable Christians buying into it, especially if they have been exposed to the Popes that we have had in my lifetime. They exhibit a Spirit which is VERY different from those stupid accusations.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Try reading some of his early letters , it’s not a legend , and no he did not hate Catholics , he considered many of them true Christians , if you stop antagonizing people, we might be able to have a decent discussion, thanks .

Star, if revealing the facts about Luther is ‘antagonizing’ to people, then wouldn’t Luther be at fault?

In addition, I am about 100 times more charitable to my opponents than Luther was to his. If revealing the Facts About Luther is antagonizing to people, then you should look to Luther as the source. After all, he is the one who said and did these things that I report. Furthermore, if you have negative feelings about how I conduct myself here, then you SHOULD hate Luther for his ‘polemical style’. The fact that you don’t, but rather defend him, while chiding me, I see as hypocritical. If you see it differently, and would like to support that view, please do so. We could make a list of my offenses and compare it to his and see how it looks side by side.

I will tell you this though - I am not a big fan of Martin Luther but I have NEVER claimed that he was the antichrist. In addition, while I do criticize him routinely, I do so on the basis of the historical facts. I criticize him but nobody is at all confused as to why.

God Bless You Star, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I see we have another poster who likes talking about Topper LOL…
Oh well…so be it.

I admire Topper for speaking the truth boldly.

Mary.

Are you under the mistaken impression that it is acceptable to boldly defend the Catholic Church or what?

Or should we be very quiet and allow people to say things that we KNOW are untrue and misleading? Should we be more interested in not hurting feelings or should we be committed to the Truth?

As for me Mary, I have seen Luther or Protestantism in general misrepresented thousands of times on these threads. Funny though how I have NEVER ONCE seen any of those misrepresentations make Luther or Protestantism look worse than they deserve to look, or the Church look better than it deserves to look. Much of this is due to people learning the ‘sanitized version’ of history that is typically taught, and much of it is simply due to bias.

I have to ask if this has been your experience.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Thanks Star,

I actually enjoy talking to topper , just sometimes he gets a bit excessive with his way of getting his point across ( something I need to work on too , forgive me if I was being I bit rude earlier) .

If I am ‘excessive’ sometimes, how would you characterize Luther’s ‘antichrist’ accusations, or his polemical style in general?

God Bless You Star, Topper