Does Vicar of Christ=Anti-Christ?

[Topper17]

Cyprian of Carthage

“If they [the heretics] desire peace, let them lay aside their arms. If they make atonement, why do they threaten? Or if they threaten, let them know that they are not feared by God’s priests. For even Antichrist, when he shall begin to come, will not enter into the Church [even though] he threatens; neither shall we yield to his arms and violence, [though] he declares that he will destroy us if we resist” (Letters 69[70]:3 [A.D. 253]).

“**oth baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one and the Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results that with them [heretics and schismatics] all things are futile and false, nothing that which they have done ought to be approved by us. . . . And the blessed apostle John also, keeping the commandments and precepts of the Lord, has laid it down in his epistle and said, ‘You have heard that Antichrist shall come; even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time . . . ‘[1 John 2:18]. Wherefore we who are with the Lord and maintain the unity of the Lord, and according to his condescension administer his priesthood in the Church, should repudiate and reject and regard as profane whatever his adversaries and the antichrists do; and to those who, coming about of error and wickedness, acknowledge the true faith of the one Church, we should give the truth both of unity and faith, by means of all the sacraments of divine grace” (ibid., 54[69]:19).

“**ecause there can be nothing common to falsehood and truth, to darkness and light, to death and immortality, to Antichrist and Christ, we ought by all means to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church and not to give way to the enemies of the faith and truth in any respect. Neither must we prescribe the form of custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose and upon whom he built his Church . . . despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth [that Paul gave] . . . furnishing thus an illustration to us both of concord and of patience” (ibid., 70[71]:2-3).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by the evil craft of his magic shall seize upon the Roman power. Of the kings who reigned before him, three shall he humble [Dan. 7:24], and the remaining seven he shall have as subjects under him. At first he shall feign mildness—as if he were a learned and discreet person—and sobriety and loving kindness” (Catechetical Lectures 15:12 [A.D. 350]).

“Having beguiled the Jews by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall he be the perpetrator of such things; and then he shall be destroyed by the glorious second coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ, who shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth [2 Thess. 2:8], and deliver him over to the fire of Gehenna” (ibid.).

Augustine

“Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come and to carry on his destruction to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man, that is to say, of Christ” (The City of God 20:19 [A.D. 419]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

.****

Hi Mary,

I loved all your quotes of the Fathers. Please envision the following hypothetical meeting:

There is a meeting of ALL of the Early Church Fathers in your list, at some kind of Church Council.

In walks Martin Luther. He steps up to the podium and begins to speak of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the antichrist.

I can imagine two reactions. One would be howling laughter. The other would be that he would be immediately taken into custody and held over for a trial on the charge of heresy.

Of course they would want to know who he was and by what his authority he could make such an accusation. When they found out that he was a young, relatively inexperienced Professor and Theologian from Europe’s least distinguished university, what do you think they would do? Why would (or should) he be taken seriously, at all?

What I find humorous is the idea that Luther’s claims about the Pope being the Antichrist are consistent with the Early Church Fathers. Could ANYBODY possibly believe that?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

We have argued the papacy using Scripture, tradition and the ECF before many times and the problem becomes the Catholics reject the Lutheran explanation and scripture references that go with it because they do not find the Concord book authoritative in any manner as a “right reflection of Scripture.” Thus it is a good point Topper raised from a Catholic perspective regarding the authority of the Confessions.

So it seems as if a doctrine was manufactured based on Sola Scriptura regarding the Pope
and then those that believed as such sifted through the scripture and ECF’s to find “proof.”

The problem becomes an issue of authority in the end. Who has it and who lacks it.

Mary

Exactly Mary! What is the specific and exact nature of authority behind those accusations about the Pope as the Antichrist? The actual history of the early reformation suggests that Luther became convinced that the Pope was the antichrist because the Pope would not change the teachings of the Catholic Church to suit Luther’s opinions. When he began to realize that the Church was not simply going to roll over and give him is way doctrinally, he began to formulate a belief that the papacy was evil. After all, it was opposing HIS BELIEFS, which in a relatively short period of time, he came to see as basically infallible.

The authority of the Lutheran Confessions to proclaim the Pope as the antichrist is at the core of this issue. That being said, the authority of the Lutheran Confessions rest on the foundation of Luther’s personal authority. If Luther’s authority is found to be invalid, in terms of God’s sanction, then, automatically, the Lutheran Confessions become equally invalid, as a legitimate expression of God’s Absolute Truth.

Of course it is important to understand what Martin Luther thought his Authority was, in relation to his antichrist accusation:

Speaking of Luther’s self-perception of his authority, Richard Marius states:

“Now with increasing conviction Luther saw the Antichrist possessing the Catholic Church in the person of the pope. By the time he came to full understanding of justification by faith in the summer or early fall of 1519, he believed he was God’s instrument to resist the Antichrist in the congregation of the faithful.” Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 208.

Here we learn that this young Professor and Theologian believed that God had chosen HIM to be the instrument to resist the Antichrist. I think that that level of presumption speaks for itself, and I think that that presumption of God given authority to actually speak FOR God, explains how Luther could make such a ridiculous accusation about the leader of the Catholic Church.

Of course, we hear all the time that Luther was actually trying to ‘reform the Church. In my view, if Luther had wanted to ‘reform’ the Church, and wanted to be considered an actual ‘reformer’, then he should not have left it. While he was right to rebuke the Church for abuses in matters of practice that were being committed, it didn’t take him long at all to ‘transform’ his efforts into an assault on Christian doctrine. Plenty of people complained about the abuses and DID NOT lead a doctrinal revolt. In fact, before he was officially excommunicated from the Church, he had refuted more than 4 dozen important doctrines of the Church. Luther was not a ‘reformer’. In fact, it was just a few months after his 95 Theses that he had already decided that he was going to fight the Church tooth and nail.

Professor Warren H. Carroll comments:

“Some time during the early spring of 1518 Luther had received a letter from his former professor of philosophy at the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, a man whom he deeply respected and who had expected great service to the Church from so able a mind and so strong a personality as Luther. Now Professor Trutfetter solemnly warned his former student against the path he was taking, urging him to turn back before it was too late. On May 9 Luther replied: ‘To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as the at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted.’ Such uprooting, he said, had now become his fixed purpose, ‘a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of the greatest weight for me, much less than that of any others, can turn me aside.’ Martin Luther, (Carrol quoting Fife, ‘Revolt of Martin Luther’, pg. 267)

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Hi Star,

Thanks for your response.

Star – I do NOT make false charges. I can appreciate it that you don’t want to be included in the Formula of Concord nonsense about the Pope being the VERY Antichrist. If that doesn’t apply to you, as it seems, then I apologize. On the other hand, wasn’t it you that said that the antichrist label is the only thing that makes sense?

In the future I should probably refer to FofC Lutherans as adhering to Pope is the “VERY anti-Christ” bologna. In fact, as we move through this thread especially, it is becoming clear to me that there is only a very small percentage of Lutheranism that holds to that dribble. They do seem to be proportionally overrepresented here.

Maybe you could help me with this. As far as you know, in the US, is it only WELS and the LCMS that are ‘Confessional”, meaning following the FofC?

As for Luther’s hatred, it doesn’t appear that you have read very much of the available literature. Of course the education that the laity receives in Lutheran churches does not deal very much with Luther’s rather uncharitable actions, books, and letters. So I really don’t blame you for not having a ‘balanced view’ of the man. As for Luther hating the Pope and Catholics in general, I would suggest that you contact Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards, who, 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

In other words, Luther hated ALL Catholics, “as agents of Satan.”

Seriously Star, give Edwards a call and tell him you think he is wrong. You might want to read at least one of his 4 books on Luther though before you do. I would suggest “Luther’s Last Battles”. It is excellent. It documents the way that he treated his opponents, which by the way, included a lot of people by the end of his life.

God Bless You Star, Topper

I said some Lutherans believe the antichrist label is the only appropriate one , I didn’t say I support that view .

As for the hate thing , if anything, because he believed he was right ( nod I agree with his doctrine except for the pope thing ) he cared enough to tell others so , he used harsh language yes , but not out of hate , and I have read his stuff by the way .

1. Is the pope the antichrist , no , but the apostles are shown as equals , not as having to bow to peters " primacy " .
2. If I’m going to call Edwards , I’m going to Need his number first

 

[Topper17]

Carrol continues:

“This is one of the most important of the thousands of letters Luther wrote in his long, full lifetime. It reveals that as early as May 1518 he was essentially committed to the destruction of the Church as he knew it, though he had not yet proceeded to total public defiance of all Church authority. It shows his revolutionary temper, his purpose to ‘uproot’ rather than simply to reform, which is the goal of every revolutionary. It provides our first evidence that the upheaval to come was rightly to be called a revolt or a revolution, not a ‘reformation’. It also shows Luther in the act of coldly and deliberately breaking a bond whose quality and strength only the dedicated teacher and his former student know: the love and loyalty that emanate from their memories of each other.” Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christenedom”, pg. 7-8

The charge of ‘antichrist’ was only part of that plan for the ‘destruction of the Church’, to use Carrol’s term.

"Luther wrote this letter just before completing his defense in Latin of his position on indulgences. He sent a copy to the Pope with a cover letter, later printed with is as a preface. In the preface he says that he ‘cannot recant’ from his position on indulgences, yet still insists on his willingness to listen to Leo X ‘as the ‘Voice of Christ’, who presides in him and speaks through him…….enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm me, reject me, just as it pleases you’……despite the fact that in the text itself, sent with this letter, he had flatly and insultingly declared: ‘I do not care what pleases or displeases the Pope. He is just a man like other men. There have been many Popes inclined to errors, vices, and even very strange things.’

………In early July Luther was summoned to appear at Rome for trial within sixty days. He responded with his characteristic defiance, declaring that he would not accept excommunication if the Church decreed it for him. On July 25 he reiterated that defiance, along with references to ‘eternal predestination,’ in another sermon before Duke George of Saxony and his court. Shouting matches broke out afterward between Luther and professors defending scholastic theology. Undoubtedly the entire academic brawl deepened Duke George’s concern about the damage Luther was already doing and much greater damage he was capable of doing.” William H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom’, pg. 7-8

In this early 1518 letter to the pope, a year before the 7 day long Leipzig Debate with Eck, and 5 months before his ‘interview’ with Cardinal Cajetan, and a full 2 and a half years before he was excommunicated, Luther stated that he wanted to uproot the ‘ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist’. To uproot all of these things would be to destroy the Church, which was exactly what Luther had in mind. This mid 1518 letter reveals Luther’s real intentions, which was not ‘reform’, but destruction of the Church. The charge of ‘antichrist’ played its part in his effort to destroy the Church. Unfortunately, there were quite a few people who also found it in their best interest to destroy the Church also, and not necessarily for religious reasons.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[pablope]

W

I will say this: you have no idea whether or not Luther admitted his sins or errors, since there is a seal of the confessional.

Jon

Well…does wishing one ill on one’s deathbed show someone as remorseful?

Luther’s rejection of the papacy persisted to the very end of his life. “The prayer he uttered ‘Impleat vos Deus odio papae’?] on the night of his death apparently testifies to that rejection.”xx

 

[pablope]

Exactly. That is why it is not a doctrine. It is a historical judgement. But scripture, as I’ve shown, does present the reasons why we believe that the mentioned teachings are opposed to Christ.

Scripture twisted according to your interpretation…to show that the pope is the anti-Christ.

Can you show how such Scriptures were used to refer to the bishop of Rome as the anti-Christ prior to Lutherans using them justify your charge of the pope being the anti-Christ?

and as I said, and Mary proves by the fantastic list of Fathers who chose to apply the term “anti-Christ” for various teachings they believed opposed Christ, the term could be applied by Catholics to various protestant teachings, to the extent they disagree with Catholic teaching.

 

[MaryT777]

I said some Lutherans believe the antichrist label is the only appropriate one , I didn’t say I support that view .

As for the hate thing , if anything, because he believed he was right ( nod I agree with his doctrine except for the pope thing ) he cared enough to tell others so , he used harsh language yes , but not out of hate , and I have read his stuff by the way .

1. Is the pope the antichrist , no , but the apostles are shown as equals , not as having to bow to peters " primacy " .
2. If I’m going to call Edwards , I’m going to Need his number first

Starwars:

1.You have said several times that your group of Lutherans do not subscribe to the teaching the Pope is the antichrist. (f I understand you correctly) I am still wondering how this works as far as who decides this for your group of Lutherans?

1. Why do some Lutherans accept this and others do not?
2. When you call Edwards ask him to send Mary a complimentary set of his books for Christmas, thanks.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

I said some Lutherans believe the antichrist label is the only appropriate one , I didn’t say I support that view .

As for the hate thing , if anything, because he believed he was right ( nod I agree with his doctrine except for the pope thing ) he cared enough to tell others so , he used harsh language yes , but not out of hate , and I have read his stuff by the way .

1. Is the pope the antichrist , no , but the apostles are shown as equals , not as having to bow to peters " primacy " .
2. If I’m going to call Edwards , I’m going to Need his number first

Starwars:

I put my response in two parts for the first post has questions I hope you will answer ( the last post).

The problem is Luther seemed full of hatred towards not just the Catholic Church and the Pope but others as time went on. Not to be an armchair psychiatrist, LOL, but hatred can have many origins including childhood trauma and from what I’ve read about Luther it wasn’t an easy road in that department. Culpability can be diminished for sins by issues that diminish our ability to act feely.

The Bible is pretty clear about hatred towards a brother:
1 John 3:15New International Version (NIV). 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in …

One must guard against hatred, all of us, and try to understand and love our neighbor as ourself. Luther had some good writings about putting the best construction on everything in his writings on the eighth commandment but it appears as with all of us it’s difficult to do yourself and he himself failed to “practice what he preached.”

He may have believed he was right but that doesn’t excuse a lot of the bad behavior nor was he right in the eyes of the Catholic Church of course. We don’t recognize the authority of Luther as a free agent to change doctrine.

That said I had a good LCMS preacher/Pastor friend and he said “It’s a world limping in sin.” He is also the one who told me when we got into Catholic/Lutheran discussions
we may be as different as Catholic and Lutheran…
but we are as similar as two believing Christians.

so…towards a better understanding…

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

But Topper. No Lutheran I know of cares what you believe to be the real issue. Or what you believe the authority behind the Confessions are.

This is a personal attack Jon and it is intentionally offensive. There is absolutely no reason to respond to ANY post which contains these kinds of uncharitable comments.

That being said, I have scanned through your three page response and have noticed that you did not deal with even ONE of my comments and questions about the authority of the Lutheran Confessions. The authority of those Confessions lie at the very heart of the official teaching of your Confessional accusation that the Pope is “the VERY Antichrist”.

As I predicted, when someone does not have a compelling response, and they know it, they will respond with “something” that looks like a response, but really isn’t.

Furthermore, your offensive remark is false on its face. If no Lutheran cares what I believe to be the real issues, or what I think is the actual authority behind the Lutheran Confessions, then you wouldn’t have written a three page post designed to SEEM as if you had responded to my questions.

Given that you had finally answered my simple question, I toned down my ‘style’ intentionally so as to create an environment in which an open and honest debate can take place where we could each ask and answer questions respectfully. Obviously that didn’t work.

 

[Topper17]

But you could, Topper. Do you believe his teachings (that don’t agree with Catholic teaching) are opposed to Christ? Are they anti Christ? How is calling someone a heretic much different? Sure, there are additional connotations to heretic, and the term anti-Christ is used in a different way be some premillenialist types, but the effect is the same. Both terms charge a lack of adherence to the faith.

Jon, your response above was to the following:

Topper: “I am not a big fan of Martin Luther but I have NEVER claimed that he was the antichrist.”

So what was the possible purpose in suggesting that I COULD claim that he was the antichrist? I COULD claim that Luther was the antichrist as you state, but Jon, I HAVEN’T and I NEVER WILL. That is FAR TOO HIDEOUS a thing to say. Its WAY to offensive and disrespectful. Its another ‘pigs could fly’ statement. All things being possible, a pig could fly someday (possibly with divine assistance). But NO pig has ever flown. I COULD claim that Luther was the antichrist, but I NEVER WILL. This means that your statement is meaningless and misleading. It points to an impossible possibility and states “well we WOULD be equally offensive IF your language would be as offensive as ours.” It won’t happen.

Furthermore, you keep contending that ALL your confessions do is claim that the pope is teaching opposed to Christ’s teachings. That is NOT all your confessions claim.

I think you may find the roots of this accusation with the Lutherans:

bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#article4

10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist,

“The VERY Antichrist” Jon. That is 10 times more offensive than what your confessions don’t say, which is something like “it is our considered opinion that the Pope is teaching differently than Christ, but then that is only our considered opinion”.

Your Confessions say what they say, and don’t what they don’t. You can’t change that, and as we have learned, your Confessions are absolutely unchangeable, in spite of fact that they are of completely human origin.

Randy asked me what I own, regarding the confessions on this topic. Seek out that answer.

Should I seek out what you own Jon?

But Topper. No Lutheran I know of cares what you believe to be the real issue. Or what you believe the authority behind the Confessions are.

The issue at hand is not what you believe personally Jon. There are times when that is the question but this is not one of them. This is a matter of your Lutheran Confessions and how they are intentionally offensive. The statement that the Pope is “the VERY Antichrist” is only one of many. There are the statements about the ‘adherents’. Those are ridiculous and offensive also. They are cut from the same cloth as the antichrist accusations.

You might not want to get painted with the same brush as your Confessional Statements are painted, and justifiably by Catholics. I understand that completely. But Jon, those are YOUR Confessional statements that YOU are supposed to uphold and believe. In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, but when you joined the LCMS, didn’t you profess, officially, that you held to ALL of the things in your Confessions, including Concord?

If the things in ALL of your Confessions don’t reflect what you believe, then YOU have to decide what you are going to do about it. Those statements are not going to change, not one word of them, and you can’t make them say what they don’t say.

As for the charge of heresy Jon – what do you think the Church should do? Do you think that the historical Church had no right to determine if the Arians, the Montanists, etc were heretics?

There is a tremendous amount of historical precedent for the Catholic Church declaring people, groups and beliefs to be heretical. On the other hand, there is NO precedent for a rouge Theologian to break away from the Church, start his own communion, and pronounce the Pope to be the AntiChrist. None. No precedent whatsoever.

You of course will agree that the early Church had EVERY right to condemn the Arians, Montanists, etc. Heretical groups always support the right of the Church to oppose the beliefs of prior heretics, but NONE OF THEM believe that the Church had the right to condemn THEM.

Doesn’t the uncountable number of Protestant denominations prove, and I mean absolutely prove that Luther’s doctrinal Rebellion against the Church has been a theological disaster, especially in terms of Christian unity? Lutherans also practice that it is the CHURCH and not the individual which establishes doctrine. Why is it that you give Luther a pass on this matter? What was it that gave him, in your mind, the right to doctrinally rebel against HIS Church when Lutheranism will not allow people to doctrinally rebel against their church?

 

[Michael68]

Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic Papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the Papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being ‘anti’ or ‘in place of’ Christ. Second, the Papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the Papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic Papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.

How is the word “anti” synonymous with “in place of”? Vicar means representative and NOT anti christ. The thought is just ridiculous!

 

[JustaServant]

How is the word “anti” synonymous with “in place of”? Vicar means representative and NOT anti christ. The thought is just ridiculous!

The word translated “anti” in the Greek means “in place of” I believe. Or ‘in stead of’. A Greek scholar would know, as I am not one and have forgotten a lot that when I was a Baptist.
Suffice to say our English language has limitations in translating a rich language like the Greek NT.

 

[Topper17]

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti

Anti means to oppose, be in opposition to, against.

Jon

As a Confessional Lutheran, are you allowed to deny the actual text of your own Confessions?

When the Confessions say that the Pope is the VERY ANTICHRIST, it seems rather disrespectful of your Confessions to suggest that it means something different than what SO OBVIOUSLY means. Remember Jon the 1921 statement by the LCMS that they will not change a word.

“THE VERY ANTICHRIST” is FAR from ‘opposed to, against’.

Do you remember from a previous thread that when your ‘opposed to’ vs. THE ANTICHRIST comment drew this response:

“There is no Real world where you can SEPARATE the office from the person, as the LCMS TRIES to do. It is CLASSIC Protestant sophistry.” AmbroseSJ

In case Am’s point about this sophistry is unclear, synonyms for the word ‘sophistry’ are as follows:

Fallaciousness, illogicality, dishonesty, fraudulence.

I think that AmbroseSJ pretty much nailed it.

 

[MaryT777]

Take a look at the Confutation, and see how often they use the term approved.

Jon

Yes I just reviewed the Confutation but we have a long ways to go with authority and justification. Plus of course some issues with the Catholic Mass. Mess with the Mass and Catholics will get nutty on you…we value the Mass and the Eucharist as the source and summit of our Faith where we receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of our savior, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic the AntiChrist.
Mary.

 

[Michael68]

Yes I just reviewed the Confutation but we have a long ways to go with authority and justification. Plus of course some issues with the Catholic Mass. Mess with the Mass and Catholics will get nutty on you…we value the Mass and the Eucharist as the source and summit of our Faith where we receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of our savior, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.the AntiChrist.
Mary.

Amen!!! Don’t mess with the Mass!

 

[steido01]

As a Confessional Lutheran, are you allowed to deny the actual text of your own Confessions?

Nope. Our church, which wrote those Confessions as a testament to its biblical teaching, interprets those texts. Not me, and definitely not Topper.

When the Confessions say that the Pope is the VERY ANTICHRIST, it seems rather disrespectful of your Confessions to suggest that it means something different than what SO OBVIOUSLY means.

“So obviously?” And it gets the shouting ALL CAPS? No, Topper. You don’t get to decide what Lutheranism teaches.

Remember Jon the 1921 statement by the LCMS that they will not change a word.

And we don’t. Why are you trying to change our words?

“THE VERY ANTICHRIST” is FAR from ‘opposed to, against’.

Do you remember from a previous thread that when your ‘opposed to’ vs. THE ANTICHRIST comment drew this response:

“There is no Real world where you can SEPARATE the office from the person, as the LCMS TRIES to do. It is CLASSIC Protestant sophistry.” AmbroseSJ

I think this is a different thread, but since you’ve brought it up, is Transubstantiation a Catholic sophistry of the Sacrament of the Altar? There’s no real world where you can separate the ‘accidents’ of Bread and Wine from the very true Real Presence of Christ.

In case Am’s point about this sophistry is unclear, synonyms for the word ‘sophistry’ are as follows:

Fallaciousness, illogicality, dishonesty, fraudulence.

I think that AmbroseSJ pretty much nailed it.

Oh. Here I thought you were trying to make a logical point. Instead it seems you’re calling all of Lutheranism liars? Wow. That’s incredible.

 

[steido01]

How is the word “anti” synonymous with “in place of”? Vicar means representative and NOT anti christ. The thought is just ridiculous!

There are times when Christ explicitly tells us to do things in His place. For example, our priests administer the Sacraments in Christ’s stead and by his command. This is good, and it at these times, it is correct to consider these Servants of the Word to be ‘vicars’ of Christ.

But if someone places themselves in Christ’s place without Christ’s direct instruction to do so, he has put himself above Christ. That person is therefore anti-to-Christ. Seems rather straightforward.

Lutherans have historically held that the Office of the Papacy does this. But we love the men who hold that office, and recognize [most of] them to be Christians. Benedict XVI is my personal favorite.

 

[MaryT777]

What is still confusing to me and I’ve read most every post here, is why one Lutheran poster is saying that the belief in the AntiChrist teaching is not imperative to be a confessional Lutheran and identifies as a confessional Lutheran

Thus my ? is to the LCMS posters I guess:
Do you consider someone a “confessional Lutheran” who does not believe the AntiChrist teachings in the Concord book?

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

We have a Lutheran Poster that has indicated (If I understood correctly) not all Lutherans believe the AntiChrist charge in the Confessions, I am assuming.

To the LCMS Posters:

Do you consider Lutherans that don’t subscribe to the antiChrist teachings in the Concord book true confessional Lutherans? In other words does it matter either way?

Mary.

 

[clem456]

Didn’t Christ live vicariously for us?
Jesus Christ took on our human nature, and bore the burden of our sins vicariously. He has compassion on us. Compassion means to suffer with.
So “Vicar” does not mean “stolen identity”. Or does it mean conforming one’s self in a unique way to the mission of Jesus Christ?

“For our sake God made him to be sin”

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.407