Lutherans, Is This True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bzkoss236 said:
But it doesn’t say just “anti-Christ” or “an anti-Christ”, it says “the very anti-Christ” a in the anti-Christ of the apocalypse.
Click to expand...
Frankly, my personal opinion is that the particular LCMS author probably needs to reflect a bit more before publishing. Our Confessions and all other documents I’ve seen don’t use such language.

Even the phrase “the very anti-Christ” isn’t very Lutheran.
 
40.png
Hockeygurl:
Please do not lump all of us “protestants” together. I have been lurking for quite a while now and just had to jump in. I grew up LCMS Lutheran. Currently, I call myself non-denominational and have been studying the bible on my own with the help of all you people and numerous other internet sites. I still identify with Protestantism, however I would say the above is completely false. Myself and others that I know hold to the spirit of the gospel message and would call honest and true believers to be headed for salvation. These believers may not attend church at all (myself) or the catholic church, orthodox church etc…

As far as the stumbling blocks for me… Mary, oral contraception, confession etc… I don’t know any protestant churches that REQUIRE the belief in these doctrines for salvation. The catholic church still affirms that it is necessary for salvation to believe what the church teaches on these practices. In that case I know MANY catholics who are in trouble because of practices in the church that they don’t agree with.

Now for the “:bible” question. I have read many times on this site that the “bible” wasn’t put together for 100’s of years so why should we use it to guide us? Much of the NT is comprised of letters from the apostles, John, Peter and then Paul who wrote many letters to the churches that were forming. These letters guided the churches as far as core beliefs and practices. These letters were available in the 1st century and the use of scribes was very common so there may have been a limited number of copies made. The point is the guidance of these letters WAS given to the churches back then. At this point I agree with a moderate amount of “tradition”. It was common for jews to memorize the scriptures so they could teach it to others and I believe this is what may have happened.

Another thing I just wanted to add is that I find most liturgical church services not helpful.
  1. Who wants to sit in church for someone else to tell you 10 things that you aren’t doing good enough on. I don’t need to be reminded of my sins, I know they are plentiful.
  2. I don’t find it easy to have a good connection with GOD in these services that have you sitting, then standing then kneeling. Tiring. AND sometimes they have very stupid hymns. I understand fellowship is a good thing, however I find that alone time is the time where I can have a good “conversation” with GOD. “wherever 2 or more gather in my name, I will be there also” I prefer to study and worship with my family or a small group.
OK, on the OP. Yes the LCMS does say that in their statement of faith, ( I was never verbally taught that). but again I am not reguired to believe it.
As someone else mentioned above, there are to be many ant-Christ’s in the world. the Catholic church of the middle ages does fit in with this “label” when one considers the abuses of/in the church at that time. I don’t know, but I don’t think I would state that the current pope/office of the pope is anti-Christ.

Thanks for listening to my rant…I just sometimes think these peripheral beliefs hold us from coming back to the simple message that Christ gave us.
  1. In “most liturgical services” or at Mass, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the priest completely dress-down the parish over 10 or more things we are doing wrong. In MY experience, the homilies are usually quite educational and helpful. I am very sorry that has not been your experience.
  2. Posture: VERY important. We stand for important prayers to GOD and when the Gospel is read. We kneel before Christ when the Holy Eucharist is consecrated and taken by the Parish. This is all done out of love and respect.
Acts 2:42~They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

It is always great to worship publicly. The Church is a COMMUNITY, is it not? Commune with us…
 
benjohnson said:
Frankly, my personal opinion is that the particular LCMS author probably needs to reflect a bit more before publishing. Our Confessions and all other documents I’ve seen don’t use such language.

Even the phrase “the very anti-Christ” isn’t very Lutheran.
Click to expand...
Well, it is (I believe it’s lifted from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope - but i may be misremembering… im in my phone) but it’s rather archaic language that to our modern ears doesn’t appear to jive with actual Lutheran beliefs. I think the whole point of the original LCMS statement was to clarify what is meant by the Treatise’s wording.
 
Alizarin said:
It split the college of cardinals, it split the Catholic community as a whole; three factions supporting three “popes”. I was responding to a particular post in this thread about unity in the Body. Don’t know why you brought up doctrine etc.
Click to expand...
The college of Cardinals are split in each and every Papal election. If it was unanimous, the YouTube false prophets would go apoplectic. They are anyway. Where does the bible say that all votes or lots cast must be unanimous? Doesn’t.

I brought doctrine up, because that is all that should matter. We are to seek God’s revealed truth, and that must be unchanging doctrine. People, even popes, come and go, but God’s truth does not.

By a standard of perfection in human behavior, the Church failed in the Apostolic age. The entire new Testament is replete with treachery, unfaithfulness, heresy and Paul’s anathema. Atheists rightly point this out, so perhaps there is another standard that should be applied.
 
po18guy said:
The college of Cardinals are split in each and every Papal election. If it was unanimous, the YouTube false prophets would go apoplectic. They are anyway. Where does the bible say that all votes or lots cast must be unanimous? Doesn’t.

I brought doctrine up, because that is all that should matter. We are to seek God’s revealed truth, and that must be unchanging doctrine. People, even popes, come and go, but God’s truth does not.

By a standard of perfection in human behavior, the Church failed in the Apostolic age. The entire new Testament is replete with treachery, unfaithfulness, heresy and Paul’s anathema. Atheists rightly point this out, so perhaps there is another standard that should be applied.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a split election. There were three popes at once!
 
JonNC said:
And, so does “heretic” and, “let him be anathema”, etc.
Click to expand...
But, what if someone actually was a heretic? I mean, Arius was a heretic, wasn’t he? Nestorius too. Pelagius, certainly. The Church has vast experience in identifying heresy - having had to combat it 30+ times. It’s not like pornography - it has a definition.

And, who used heresy first? Luke in Acts 5, regarding the Sadducees - they were heretics. As well, that f-bomb of “anathema” was first uttered by which Pope?

It was not. Saint Paul used it first in the NT. So, is it OK for Paul to use “anathema” but no one else? Do we hurl invective at Paul for using that curse word “anathema”? Do we call Paul the antichrist?
JonNC said:
This is the problem with threads of this type; without background knowledge and information, it is all very emotion-packed polemics. The fact is that, more and more, Lutherans and Catholics are allies. More and more, we are thrust together by the secular world, as well as by many in the radical reformation groups.
Click to expand...
A true olive branch would be deleting that emotion-packed passage from the confessions, don’t you think? Or are they considered unalterable?
JonNC said:
Perhaps, but then it is a two-edged sword. From The Small Catechism to “A Mighty Fortress”, his great words shine through. It is notable that great Catholics like Cardinal Ratzinger can see the real Luther through the polemics.

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes, but very wisely avoided discussion of the obvious differences and problems. Protestantism is considered to possess certain truths by both the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic, but truth is not served by claiming that we are all correct.
 
steido01 said:
It had only been posted two hours when you posted. 🤷 I work. 😃

Is it true that the Lutheran Confessions understand that the institution of the papacy is Antichrist? Yes. That’s what the LCMS page is simply restating. Randy, I don’t think it was your intent, but I think you emphasized a section that is meant to serve as a simple conclusion about how the LCMS holds to the Confessions in relation to the topic of Antichrist; read the 1,029 preceding characters and you’ll see that it is not so simple as ‘the Pope is the Antichrist!’

Now let’s take a look at why Lutherans consider the institution of the papacy to be anti-Christ. The Reformers gave three reasons why the term applied to the Papacy (below). At least one of these (#2), does not apply in our day, since the Pope is no longer a kingmaker (one less issue keeping us from restored unity! :D):

  1. *]The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
    *]Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
    *]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.
Click to expand...

  1. Huh … I was all ready to post this.
 
I’m just kind of sitting here shaking my head. I was not aware of this belief by Lutherans as stated in their Confessions, and I don’t care how you cut it, it says what it says. My question to the Lutheran posters on this thread is: Do you believe this language should be removed from the Confessions?
 
Novocastrian said:
It wasn’t a split election. There were three popes at once!
Click to expand...
Well, did the Church start that way? Is it still that way? No and no. That it survived with its teachings intact must count for something.

Why should three Popes bother someone who believes in zero Popes?
 
po18guy said:
Since the scriptures, specifically First John (2:22, 4:3) and Second John (1:7), all specify that the antichrist denies that Christ has come in the flesh, how can any Pope, even Leo X, be accused of such? Not one has ever dared make such a denial. Yet, this counter-scriptural accusation is more prevalent today than back then. To me, such parts of the “Confessions” seem to be a somewhat embarrassing, hyperbolic and emotional holdover from the very political, power-laden and tumultuous times of the 16th century rebellion. They reflect, in part, Luther’s well-documented visceral hatred of the Papacy and, I think, tend to personalize the faith that bears the man’s name.
Click to expand...
👍
Mary.
 
po18guy said:
Originally Posted by Novocastrian View Post
I quite understand. I imagine Lutherans feel the same way about being told that they are not a real church, that they aren’t allowed to own property, that their church was founded by an incontinent, excommunicated monk, etc.
Click to expand...
Why is that worse?
Click to expand...
 
Novocastrian said:
I’ve read the Patriarch’s replies to the Lutheran questions before, but don’t have them to hand. Could you supply me with that passage?

Many thanks,

N.
Click to expand...
Good question. I don’t have the texts on hand either.
 
Novocastrian said:
Would you say, then, that the Orthodox do not see the Roman Church as a real Church?
Click to expand...
Well, I’ll let Orthodox posters speak for themselves (assuming any post on this thread of course) but that has been my general experience from many years of conversing with Orthodox.
 
The Reformed Presbyterians in the United States figured out a long time ago that Pope = anti-Christ didn’t make any sense. Here is the original version of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the issue:

“VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.” WCF 1646

Now the 1788 version used by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

“6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” WCF 1788.

I don’t know any individual Lutheran in the United States who actually believes that the Pope or the office of the Papacy is the anti-Christ referred to in Scripture. Get rid of it already. The Calvinists did.
 
SteveVH said:
I’m just kind of sitting here shaking my head. I was not aware of this belief by Lutherans as stated in their Confessions, and I don’t care how you cut it, it says what it says. My question to the Lutheran posters on this thread is: Do you believe this language should be removed from the Confessions?
Click to expand...
For me, no. The confessions make a list a what makes a Pope (or any minister) an anti-christ. From a Lutheran standpoint that list is a valid list - the logic stands.

One of the exciting things about Catholic and Orthodox dialog, is that if the schism is resolved there’s a good chance that the remaining items on the list will no longer apply.

We love the Pope, but pray that the office goes back to what we understand it should be. - just as “A Mighty Fortress” in in the Catholic hymnal even though it’s author Martin Luther is still excommunicated from a Catholic perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top