Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[JonNC]

Thank you for your explanation.

That they don’t view the Pope as* the* Anti-Christ is reassuring, but the fact that they view the office as the anti Christ troubles me greatly.

I typically don’t spend too much time arguing (what I thought was) the minutiae of Lutheran vs Catholic theology, for I always assumed that Lutherans were almost Catholics. In almost every way.

But I am bothered indeed by this news that the office that our Holy Father, Pope Francis, holds is viewed as the anti-Christ.

If one understands the charge as “opposed to Christ or His teaching”, any one could make that charge against others, and in fact it has happened in the past. But certainly that is offensive to a Catholic in communion with the Pope, just as the papal statements I mentioned to Novo are offensive to us. The question is, what do we do about it? My thinking has always been that we recognize, in each other, the presence of the Holy Spirit, through our baptisms, that we are Christian siblings, then pray for our leaders to overcome our differences so that these terrible yet mutual condemnations will be banished forever.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

You’re welcome

In some ways, I think the problem is precisely that Lutherans are so similar. It highlights the few remaining differences, and makes each one feel like a great betrayal of an otherwise shared faith. I think it’s how Anglicans tend to feel about Apostolicae Curae, and how Romans feel about the ordination of women.

Yes. Betrayal is a good word, I think, for this.

Indeed. As Lutherans are, as Jon has intimated, bothered that Unam Sanctam is still considered binding, etc.

I don’t see how it is any more offensive than saying that we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature (here, read Muslim, Jew, atheist) be subject to Christ.

That is the Christian assertion.

We assert it, even if others find it offensive, no?

 

[Novocastrian]

Yes. Betrayal is a good word, I think, for this.

I don’t see how it is any more offensive than saying that we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature (here, read Muslim, Jew, atheist) be subject to Christ.

That is the Christian assertion.

We assert it, even if others find it offensive, no?

Indeed. Which is why I was saying that the sole important criterion is truth.

If Unam Sanctam isn’t true the problem isn’t that it’s offensive, but that it would then be a grave violation of the divine constitution of the Church and the addition of a great unnecessary burden to the souls of the faithful. And some would presumably call it a betrayal, hence the Lutheran Confessions’ use of anti-Christ language.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. Betrayal is a good word, I think, for this.

I don’t see how it is any more offensive than saying that we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature (here, read Muslim, Jew, atheist) be subject to Christ.

That is the Christian assertion.

We assert it, even if others find it offensive, no?

But it doesn’t say subject to Christ, it says “subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I can see where one is subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to Christ. I can also see one not subject to the Roman Pontiff, and subject to Christ. Salvation is in Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Indeed. Which is why I was saying that the sole important criterion is truth.

If Unam Sanctam isn’t true the problem isn’t that it’s offensive, but that it would then be a grave violation of the divine constitution of the Church and the addition of a great unnecessary burden to the souls of the faithful. And some would presumably call it a betrayal, hence the Lutheran Confessions’ use of anti-Christ language.

Yep.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed. Which is why I was saying that the sole important criterion is truth.

If Unam Sanctam isn’t true the problem isn’t that it’s offensive, but that it would then be a grave violation of the divine constitution of the Church and the addition of a great unnecessary burden to the souls of the faithful.

Indeed.

 

[steido01]

To my understanding, and here I defer to those who know the Confessions better than I, they regard the office of the Papacy as anti-Christ. I don’t think they believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, but that his office as understood by ultramontane Roman Catholics (i.e. after the demise of mediaeval conciliarism) is abusive and contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. I believe it comes from equating the Papacy with false prophets and *peseudoaposteloi *in the New Testament.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe in an ultramontane Papacy de iure divino, and I worry that dogmatic definitions of Papal supremacy and infallibility are heterodox, but I don’t think it’s helpful or strictly true to call the Papacy anti-Christ.

Precisely. This is why Lutherans like me can, at the same time, be devoted supporters of Benedict XVI and much of his theology, yet still lament the powers claimed by the office he held.

Frankly, Lutherans toss around the anti-Christ label more than most folks today find palatable. In some circles, Joel Osteen is labelled anti-Christ because he obscures the Gospel in a different (and more dangerous) way. The best we can do is explain that what we mean is not what people might think.

 

[steido01]

I agree, Mary , that Topper is not and should not be the topic.

OTOH, if a Lutheran joined this forum, and professed that it was his goal to “reveal” events and actions of popes past because Catholic leadership had failed to properly teach the laity of these flaws, and further continued to bring that topic up in numerous threads, claiming that one has to understand their flaws before one can understand the topic, and further claim that that he would continue to oppose Catholicism until offensive language was “rescinded” by that Catholic Church, I suspect he would clearly be “the topic”.

And rightly so!

Jon

I suspect he’d be summarily banned. And rightly so.

 

[PRmerger]

But it doesn’t say subject to Christ, it says “subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I can see where one is subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to Christ. I can also see one not subject to the Roman Pontiff, and subject to Christ. Salvation is in Christ.

Jon

But we are agreed that it is entirely permissible to say, “All human creatures are subject to Christ”; and the affront that Muslims, Jews and atheists may feel is unfortunate, but it doesn’t stop us from professing it, yes?

Similarly, it ought to be entirely permissible to say, “All human creatures are subject to the vicar of Christ, His Visible Head on Earth at the Moment”…and the affront that non-Catholics may feel is unfortunate, but it ought not stop us from professing it, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

But it doesn’t say subject to Christ, it says “subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I can see where one is subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to Christ. I can also see one not subject to the Roman Pontiff, and subject to Christ. Salvation is in Christ.

Jon

I am curious–how is one subject to Christ, without being subject to His Body, the Church?

How does one even know what Christ wants, except that we defer to the Church on this?

Unless one believes in private revelation, all of one’s knowledge of Christ comes through His Body…and that means, it comes through His Vicar…the Pope.

 

[commenter]

But it doesn’t say subject to Christ, it says “subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I can see where one is subject to the Roman Pontiff, and to Christ. I can also see one not subject to the Roman Pontiff, and subject to Christ. Salvation is in Christ.

Jon

One could argue that
1.) the Pontiff is the focus point of the Magisterium (humanly speaking);
2.) that the Magisterium is the focus point for the identification of which books are in the NT canon,
3.) and for identifying which 1% of traditions constitute the reliable Sacred Tradition, which Protestants consider authoritative (subordinate to Scripture), at least up to a certain year
4.) that the Pontiffs even now tend to set the template for orthodoxy; for instance, nothing in the Confessions or Trent informs us about why a certain type of Stem Cell Research is wrong; but I think many Protestants regard the popes that this is part of the prolife position.
5.) Suppose there is one ship that is very easily identified, very stable, even as it adapts to a changing world. It has a living captain, not auto pilot. Suppose there are other boats who deny they are “subject” to the captain of the identifiable boat. The other boats will not be tethered to it with any rope or chain, no way. But they maintain a specific distance from that boat, never less than 200 yards, never more than 300 yards, always in sight.
6.) The word “subject” is totally unamerican, clashes with the ears of anyone who grew up in the USA! Our whole country was founded on the idea we will NOT be anyone’s subject. Just a reminder of cross-cultural differences.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13158702]But we are agreed that it is entirely permissible to say, “All human creatures are subject to Christ”; and the affront that Muslims, Jews and atheists may feel is unfortunate, but it doesn’t stop us from professing it, yes?

Agreed!

Similarly, it ought to be entirely permissible to say, “All human creatures are subject to the vicar of Christ, His Visible Head on Earth at the Moment”…and the affront that non-Catholics may feel is unfortunate, but it ought not stop us from professing it, yes?

Absolutely! It something that the Catholic Church in communion with the pope believes. It should also be entirely permissible for a Lutheran to say that we believe that teaching is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ, and is therefore opposed to, or anti Christ, yes?

With that said by each side, we then claim together that we are siblings in Christ, and that our division is evidence of sin, and that it is contrary to Christ’s call that we all be one. Asking forgiveness of each other, and together asking forgiveness from God, we ask our leaders to seek together, with guidance by the Spirit, to overcome this division.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

From the LCMS official website as of today:
Of the Antichrist
43.As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Please see our Frequently Asked Question on the subject/topic. Click on the “LCMS Views” tab and choose “The Bible.”

return to top

Of Open Questions

And continuing:

Q: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope is the only enemy?

A: 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.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am curious–how is one subject to Christ, without being subject to His Body, the Church?

How does one even know what Christ wants, except that we defer to the Church on this?

Unless one believes in private revelation, all of one’s knowledge of Christ comes through His Body…and that means, it comes through His Vicar…the Pope.

Are we not part of the body of Christ via baptism?

We would disagree that all knowledge of Christ comes through the Pope. The Pope is, indeed, an important member of the body of Christ, and popes down through the ages have played a key role, but he is only one bishop, of many, with one bishopric, of many.

And in many ways, PR, this is the bottom line issue our communions need to solve: where is found in the Church authority? What is the role the Bishop of Rome plays in the authority?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

With that said by each side, we then claim together that we are siblings in Christ, and that our division is evidence of sin, and that it is contrary to Christ’s call that we all be one. Asking forgiveness of each other, and together asking forgiveness from God, we ask our leaders to seek together, with guidance by the Spirit, to overcome this division.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Are we not part of the body of Christ via baptism?

Indeed.

We would disagree that all knowledge of Christ comes through the Pope.

But we would be agreed that all knowledge (other than private revelation) of Christ comes through the Church, yes?

 

[JonNC]

Indeed.

But we would be agreed that all knowledge (other than private revelation) of Christ comes through the Church, yes?

I think that is in keeping with the Lutheran tradition, yes. The Spirit works through the Church - word and sacrament. This is why those who claim “just Jesus and me, I don’t need a church” are mistaken.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR,

Ah. So not sure what your point was in addressing Topper?

We all agree that there are many a things that Christians must assert that could be construed as offensive, but we must still assert them. (To wit: Christ Himself said something very offensive to non-Christians–no one gets to God except through Him).

Topper agrees with this. You agree with this. I agree with this.

So not sure what you’re arguing now?

The thing that strikes me here is that people who follow Luther are offended by comments that are critical of their beliefs. The fact is that Martin Luther treated his opponents as if they were deliberately in league with Satan. Now THAT’S ‘offensive’!

More recent Lutheran Scholars are generally very honest about this ‘aspect’ of Luther’s character.

“The targets of his ire became under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 7

**“Luther, of course, was a master of plausible theological rationalization, **but he was not always comfortable with his efforts……Moreover, with their impassioned language, abusive characterizations of opponents, and almost summary discussions of the theological issues involved, they were obviously intended to be treatises of exhortation rather than explanation. They may have deepened convictions already held, but they were unlikely to have converted anyone from outside the Protestant ranks. In short, their intended audience was Protestants, not Catholics or a third party………**Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan…….Perhaps some of this fury was born of an almost unconscious awareness that his message lent itself to misunderstanding or, even worse, that his message, at least on one level, was just what his opponents said it was.” **LLB, pg. 35-7

These are stunning admissions from an extremely well respected Lutheran Scholar. He concedes that Luther didn’t really fully explain his theological positions but rather just kept summarizing them. It was as if people should believe them because Luther had stated them.

Edwards suggests that Luther’s polemical writings were not so much intended to convert, but rather to keep those loyal to his beliefs from changing their minds. I would suggest though that Luther’s polemics were, albeit subconsciously, intended to keep people from challenging HIS beliefs, and the reason is because Luther was terrified by his own doubts. The idea was to get people to stop challenging him. As we have learned, he could be extremely hateful to people who disagreed with him.

I often wonder how in the world ANYONE in Luther’s time could have possibly been a witness to his behavior and his ‘lesser-known’ teachings, and still believed that he was somehow a “Reformer” who was capable of correcting Christian doctrine or correctly interpreting Christian Scripture.

God Bless You PR, Topper

 

[JonNC]

The thing that strikes me here is that people who follow Luther are offended by comments that are critical of their beliefs. The fact is that Martin Luther treated his opponents as if they were deliberately in league with Satan. Now THAT’S ‘offensive’!

Yes, but he died 450 years ago, so I’m not sure how you can reconcile that with him.
Further, it seems he wasn’t alone with this kind of language:
Cochlaeus:

Luther is a child of the devil, possessed by the devil, full of falsehood and vainglory. His revolt was caused by monkish envy of the Dominican, Tetzel; he lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves of any means to gain his end. He thinks only of himself. He perpetrated the act of nailing up the theses for forty-two gulden - the sum he required to buy a new cowl. He is a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. There is no drop of German blood in him…

Now that’s offensive, too. Cochlaeus even ends with some ethnic bigotry.

And what’s the point of all this? There is none, unless one simply wants to score polemical points, drag up old hostilities, and fight old battles over again.

I don’t.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Some old “battles” are worth discussing today in my opinion. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura as defined by the Lutherans certainly does not coincide well with the teachings of the Catholic Church that include a Magisterium and a Pope as head of our Church that sits in the seat of the Antichrist According to Lutherans.

These issues need to be reconciled before better unity can be achieved. I don’t think suggesting these have been resolved in helpful to the cause of unity.

It is hard to take Luther out of Lutheran. His writings were of import to Lutheranism generally and sola scriptura, specifically.

Mary.