Which Church??

[IgnatianPhilo]

Is that really how you want to put it ? The first church feared not Peter or Paul, but the Holy Ghost’s judgement on Ananias.

The Corinthians didn’t fear Paul? They had no thought as to the approval of an apostle? I don’t regret my wording because I do think it is part of the church experience. Not so much fear as to be utterly terrified, but a fear of going against what has been received of going against Christ and his body. A right fear.

 

[Chong]

No and I assure you thats not a literature review. Its reading what you want to hear into a verse to dismiss the acknowledgement of it. Jesus was speaking specifically to Peter as He Blessed Him= Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

So no He spoke of Peter and his faith and he were blessed and the Church is built on both faith and person. Many Protestants agree, patristic witing agrees, history agrees and thats why the Church is the sole interpreter of scripture. Perfect example above.

The history of the church as documented in the book of Acts is very dramatic.
The first chapter starts with Jesus ascending into heaven and leaving the 11 disciples and telling them in verse 8, to wait for the infilling of the Holy Spirit, after which they were to be His witnesses from Jerusalem to the farthest parts of the earth.

The writer, Dr. Luke, records the events of the 12 (including Matthias) how they met daily for prayer and breaking of bread.
Later the events of Peter are singled out eg healing the cripple at the beautiful gate, raising Tabitha, conversion of the Centurion called Cornelius. These were mainly to the Jews except the Centurion who was Roman, and peter had to see a vision to accept to mix with a gentile.
Later the the whole focus shifts to the gentile world, and Paul takes the stage. What is recorded of Paul, and not Peter makes the bulk of the NT writings. The churches that were founded by Paul, no other apostle can measure to that. The doctrines and exposition of scripture by Paul has no equal. By all standards, that is, knowledge of the law, knowledge of scripture, eloquence of speech, knowledge of many languages, knowledge of the world by then etc, Paul was excellent. If one is measured by his actions and not by his title, then Paul is superior. The one who appointed the 12 is the same one who appointed Paul as an apostle to the gentiles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The history of the church as documented in the book of Acts is very dramatic.
The first chapter starts with Jesus ascending into heaven and leaving the 11 disciples and telling them in verse 8, to wait for the infilling of the Holy Spirit, after which they were to be His witnesses from Jerusalem to the farthest parts of the earth.

The writer, Dr. Luke, records the events of the 12 (including Matthias) how they met daily for prayer and breaking of bread.
Later the events of Peter are singled out eg healing the cripple at the beautiful gate, raising Tabitha, conversion of the Centurion called Cornelius. These were mainly to the Jews except the Centurion who was Roman, and peter had to see a vision to accept to mix with a gentile.
Later the the whole focus shifts to the gentile world, and Paul takes the stage. What is recorded of Paul, and not Peter makes the bulk of the NT writings. The churches that were founded by Paul, no other apostle can measure to that. The doctrines and exposition of scripture by Paul has no equal. By all standards, that is, knowledge of the law, knowledge of scripture, eloquence of speech, knowledge of many languages, knowledge of the world by then etc, Paul was excellent. If one is measured by his actions and not by his title, then Paul is superior. The one who appointed the 12 is the same one who appointed Paul as an apostle to the gentiles.

Sure. However, Peter and Paul had different roles to play in the Church. Have you ever considered the parallels between Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:21-22?

 

[Chong]

Sure. However, Peter and Paul had different roles to play in the Church. Have you ever considered the parallels between Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:21-22?

I have read the 2 sets of scriptures.
Isaiah was a prophet, and for this particular prophecy its important to understand the subject of the prophecy. Who was this Eliakim son of Hilkiah? Was the prophecy fulfilled then or was it to be fulfilled at the NT time?

Mt:16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mt:16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mt:16:20: Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

I have underlined some particular words to guide us on what Jesus might have been doing. We recreate his gesture, and position of Peter and the other apostles.
“Thou art Peter” is very direct and would imply Jesus facing or even pointing at Peter.
“This rock” might have implied Jesus symbolizing another object with the said rock. (the disciples must have looked and understood).
“Thee” may be in singular or plural. The person being addressed is to be given keys no a key, this may imply the keys are many being given to either one person or many persons.
Then lastly, Jesus told all his disciples not to tell others who he was. He took them back to the MAIN SUBJECT. From then Simon was called Peter, but we do not see any of the disciples asking Jesus why or when he was to build His church upon Peter. They would have been jealous why Jesus would build a church on only one person whereas they were in the same ministry as equals.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Thou art Peter” is very direct and would imply Jesus facing or even pointing at Peter.
“This rock” might have implied Jesus symbolizing another object with the said rock. (the disciples must have looked and understood).
“Thee” may be in singular or plural…

Jesus only blessed Peter and only gave him the Keys as you agree with above. There is no plural until He specifically makes the conversation inclusive of all. He builds His Church on Peter of which He is the cornerstone per scripture and the Keys are deposited into the Church of which all are in communion, thus the purpose of God becoming man. Those in the Church the elect have the authority to bind and lose and the Keys represent the gift of the teaching authority thus again communion, thus the presence of the Holy Spirit. All powers and principle use this same formula, where 2 or 3 spirits are, there is a demon, where two or three demons are, there is Satan. The demons are in communion, Christians by large are not. Tis the reason we teach “unity-communion”, its a battle of good and evil.

Had there not been the apostolic succession we are taking about, there would be no Bible canon, as the canons are representative of the Church faith and belief of which they came from.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have read the 2 sets of scriptures.

I appreciate your response, and I see that there are two issues that should be addressed: 1) Jesus is quoting Isaiah intentionally for a reason, and 2) Peter is the rock of Mt. 16:18. I’ll begin with the first point since that’s where we began.

PART 1: Peter – The Royal Steward

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority) don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

PART 2: Scripture Parallels: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word

Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim

Peter - Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

PART 3: Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

[The steward is] the king’s friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king’s counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder] (Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 – on Isaiah 22:15,22).

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

New Bible Commentary

Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called ‘my servant’ (v.20; cf. ‘this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be ‘a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

Adam Clarke

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Oscar Cullman

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom. (William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah. (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

 

[JonNC]

First of all Jon, the Augsburg Confession was not exactly an honest representation of Lutheran belief of the time. In fact, it intentionally avoided several Lutheran beliefs in an effort to achieve some sort of reunion.

“By July it was clear that on matters of doctrine the Lutherans at Augsburg were dissimulating, concealing their real beliefs in the hope if avoiding a final breach without making genuine concessions. On July 6** Melanchthon made the incredible statement: “We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church……We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are prepared to remain in allegiance to the Church if only the Pope does not repudiate us,” As it happened, on the very same day Luther, in an exposition to Archbishop Albert of Mainz**, declared: **“Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils’” ** Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 103

“It made no mention of Luther’s teaching on the authority of the Pope, predestination, the priesthood of all believers, indelible sacramental ordination, the number of sacraments, and purgatory, nor of his condemnation of all Masses as public or private. There were enormous omissions as everyone present [at Augsburg] knew.” Carroll, pg. 102

In other words, Melanchthon absolutely lied about the Augsburg Confession not being in disagreement with Catholic teaching, and that is in addition to the Confession itself being a basically dishonest depiction of Lutheran belief. That Luther approved it does not speak well of him either.

As such Jon, you will have to understand how (and why) I am not particularly impressed with the Augsburg Confession.

Hi Topper,

I will be brief and attempt to be as positive as I can, Topper.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that Dr. Carroll’s assessment of the events are correct, and your accusation that Melanchthon lied is accurate. Posivitvely understood, one can only then assume that articles 1 through 21 of the CA are more Catholic than either Luther or Melanchthon thought it should be. Why? Because according to Dr. Carroll, they were trying to get those at Augdburg to believe they were more Catholic than they were. Hence, Lutherans to this day have a affirmed a document more Catholic than either Luther or Melanchthon. That’s fine by me. It seems to be fine with Cardinal Ratzinger, to one degree or another.

Whether or not you hold the CA in low regard or not is neither germane nor of concern to me. The CA is the document to which we look in response to a question such as offered by the OP.

That’s fine Jon, and normally that works perfectly for me, but when an explanation is so counter to the literal text, it does warrant questioning. That being said, given that you would like me to accept your explanation of your Lutheran documents, I would like ask you a couple of very specific question about your Confession and the official position of the LCMS.

Not my explanation, Topper, that of my synod, which I have provided you on a number of previous occasions.

First of all, as posted earlier, the official teaching of the LCMS, right there on your website, speaks of the ‘Pope and his dominion’ have ‘fulfilled’ the prophecies of the Antichrist.

This, too, you have asked and I have answered. It is speaking of the teachings of and regarding the office of the papacy. This isn’t some unusual phrasing. One often hears about the power of the president, when the meaning is clearly the “office of the presidency”.

But since you brought up Trent, I know that you have been informed that those anathemas don’t apply to any living person – not a one.

Using your very own formula, the Council of Trent speaks specifically and clearly. It says “If** anyone**”, and “let him be anathema”. Where does the Council of Trent say these words, him and anyone only apply to certain people living in the time?
If it doesn’t, then again I point to your own words, " but the obvious literal reading of the actual text of your -]Confessional/-] council documents is another. If there is some other way to understand these specific texts, then please explain them. "

Now, to be honest, there are numerous Catholics on this forum who, where they to say, “Jon, the anathemas of Trent do not apply to modern day Lutherans”, I would take their word for it, and in most instances require no further documentation from them. However, Topper, I will hold you to the same standard that you have put forward - somewhere in Trent it must say these anathemas do not apply to Lutherans today.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Pork,
Please forgive me for altering your post somewhat for Topper’s sake.

There is also this on the **LCMS website: **

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 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 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]

Revise Trent?

How about then, “positively reformulated”?

In recent times, the Church has recognized that its teaching about the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation has been widely misunderstood, so it has “re-formulated” this teaching in a positive way. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins to address this topic: “How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And let me add that a search of the Book of Concord finds here:

A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537

Has this been formally repudiated by Lutherans worldwide?

If not, exactly what has Topper done wrong by bringing these dark passages from your church into the light of day?

While I will not assume to know Topper’s motives in the same way he seems to know Melanchthon’s by calling him a liar, Topper refuses to accept the understanding of the documents as provided by the synod, and linked to countless times here. Hence, he is trying to place us in a position of defending teaching which we do not adhere to, either as individuals or as members of the LCMS.

Let’s go down a short list, Randy:
Catholics have been accused of:

• worshipping the Blessed Virgin. It isn’t true. Catholics have told me it isn’t. I believe them.
• works righteousness. It isn’t true. Catholics have told me it isn’t. I believe them.
• all sorts of terrible things regarding the Eucharist. Utter nonsense. I didn’t need a Catholic to tell me so.
  – violating scripture by auricular confessions. Again, nonsense.

Even on the things we disagree on, Randy, the Lutherans on this site regularly show simple manners and respect by accepting your explanations, and even on occasions, defending our Catholic siblings against others’ attacks.

Its very simple, Randy, we have explained often now to Topper that, according to the teachings of our synod, we do not consider Pope Francis, or Pope Benedict before him, to be the Anti-Christ. It is the teachings of the office that we consider opposed to Christ. We consider the teaching that the Eucharist is merely symbolic of Christ’s body and blood to be opposed to Christ. That teaching is “anti-Christ”. But the specific teaching of the office of the papacy that we oppose is described in the first three paragraphs of the Treatise, one of which is already moot.

Finally, I have never called a Catholic leader, current or historic, a liar. Topper presumes to know Melanchthon’s thoughts and motives, based on events described by a Catholic writer, Dr. Warren Carroll. Maybe he has writings from Melanchthon where he says he is intentionally deceiving those at Augsburg.
Regardless, his approach is not the one I found when I first came to CAF. It isn’t the atmosphere I’ve enjoyed so thoroughly since my arrival here. He apparently doesn’t break the rules of CAF (if he did, I know Eric would deal with it), but neither is he shedding a positive light on Catholicism.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

While I will not assume to know Topper’s motives in the same way he seems to know Melanchthon’s by calling him a liar, Topper refuses to accept the understanding of the documents as provided by the synod, and linked to countless times here. Hence, he is trying to place us in a position of defending teaching which we do not adhere to, either as individuals or as members of the LCMS.

Let’s go down a short list, Randy:
Catholics have been accused of:

• worshipping the Blessed Virgin. It isn’t true. Catholics have told me it isn’t. I believe them.
• works righteousness. It isn’t true. Catholics have told me it isn’t. I believe them.
• all sorts of terrible things regarding the Eucharist. Utter nonsense. I didn’t need a Catholic to tell me so.
  – violating scripture by auricular confessions. Again, nonsense.

Even on the things we disagree on, Randy, the Lutherans on this site regularly show simple manners and respect by accepting your explanations, and even on occasions, defending our Catholic siblings against others’ attacks.

Its very simple, Randy, we have explained often now to Topper that, according to the teachings of our synod, we do not consider Pope Francis, or Pope Benedict before him, to be the Anti-Christ. It is the teachings of the office that we consider opposed to Christ. We consider the teaching that the Eucharist is merely symbolic of Christ’s body and blood to be opposed to Christ. That teaching is “anti-Christ”. But the specific teaching of the office of the papacy that we oppose is described in the first three paragraphs of the Treatise, one of which is already moot.

Finally, I have never called a Catholic leader, current or historic, a liar. Topper presumes to know Melanchthon’s thoughts and motives, based on events described by a Catholic writer, Dr. Warren Carroll. Maybe he has writings from Melanchthon where he says he is intentionally deceiving those at Augsburg.
Regardless, his approach is not the one I found when I first came to CAF. It isn’t the atmosphere I’ve enjoyed so thoroughly since my arrival here. He apparently doesn’t break the rules of CAF (if he did, I know Eric would deal with it), but neither is he shedding a positive light on Catholicism.

Jon

Jon-

I appreciate all that you’ve said, but I do have a question: if the “antichrist” stuff is no longer relevant to Lutherans, why is it still on your church’s website?

How is it helpful in any meaningful way AT ALL?

I’ve read post #425, and I have to say, it comes across as damage control. Spin.

If you no longer believe it or if the language is no longer helpful in an ecumenical climate due to the likelihood of misunderstanding and offending others, why insist upon retaining it?

 

[benjohnson]

Jon-

I appreciate all that you’ve said, but I do have a question: if the “antichrist” stuff is no longer relevant to Lutherans, why is it still on your church’s website?

My experience is that Lutherans tent to be more apt to explain than remove.

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

I appreciate all that you’ve said, but I do have a question: if the “antichrist” stuff is no longer relevant to Lutherans, why is it still on your church’s website?

How is it helpful in any meaningful way AT ALL?

I’ve read post #425, and I have to say, it comes across as damage control. Spin.

If you no longer believe it or if the language is no longer helpful in an ecumenical climate due to the likelihood of misunderstanding and offending others, why insist upon retaining it?

Hi Randy,
The charge is in the confessions, and is language from that era. There’s no denying that, even then, this was a harsh charge, maybe even “over-the-top”. Then again, over-the-top was pretty common in those days. Would you agree that Huss was a personal witness to “over-the-top”?
Even today, though, you and I have talked, and you have posted in numerous threads, the main issue that those charges refer to:

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].

2] 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.].

3] 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.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

Number 1 is still an issue between us, as we have discussed.
Numbers 2 is, essentially moot, in that the papacy no longer claims for itself the regulating of secular government.
Number 3, it seems, the Catholic Church has “positively reformulated”, as my earlier quote from the CA article implies.

These developments, and the growing understanding on justification is an indication that the harshness of the term “anti-Christ” is unneeded, IMO. That’s not to say that I think Number 1 above is now acceptable. As our communions currently view the claim, we still do not agree on it. Personally, I think “heterodox” is applicable here, but I’m not in charge of the synod, or of pan-Lutheranism.
I might be asked why I don’t leave Lutheranism as a result,and my answer is where do I go? I won’t be Catholic if I believe the claim of universal jurisdiction is heterodox. That would be disrespectful to the Catholic Church, and a deception on my part. Orthodoxy would be an option (that’s where Jaroslav Pelikan went), but their presence here in western NC, and some doctrinal issues limits that possibility. And let’s face it, I’m a western Christian. Traditional Anglicanism would be a possibility. But my understanding of the meaning of the term as the synod has described it, not Topper, is not inconsistent with my view of universal jurisdiction.

I am not defending the term itself, as the modern relationship between our traditions has matured away from such harsh attacks, for the most part, except perhaps by some apologists (on both sides). What I am defending is that our synod has stated clearly that we do not consider individual popes or Catholics to be the “Anti-Christ”, and claims that we do, even when evidence is presented in defense of our position, is a misrepresentation.

I’ve read post #425, and I have to say, it comes across as damage control. Spin.

The CA article I referenced earlier says:

In keeping with the Church’s current spirit of ecumenism, this positive reformulation comes across less harshly than previous negative formulations.

Would you say that this, too, is damaged control (spin)? If so, then maybe ours is,too. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn’t it a good thing that both of our traditions, in the spirit of current ecumenism, are willing to spin / positively reformulate these previously harsh statements? OK, then, guilty. My synod recognizing what might have been Luther’s far harsher meanings neither fit our modern view of our Catholic siblings nor their communion. That would be consistent with the idea that the charge is historically conditional.

Jon

EDIT: BTW, Randy, I think its an excellent idea that you have listed to book you are reading. I have done so, in response. Maybe others will.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Hi Topper,
I briefly wanted to comment on this.

An analogy is a comparison in which an idea or a thing is compared to another thing that is quite different from it. It aims at explaining that idea or thing by comparing it to something that is familiar.

From the website, LiteraryDevices.net

Yes, obviously the countries that make up the continent of South America are not the Church, but as you can see, an analogy uses things that are quite different for the purpose of comparison, not with the intention of saying they are the same thing in a literal sense. So, as for your offer to do all the analogies, I respectfully decline.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
The charge is in the confessions, and is language from that era. There’s no denying that, even then, this was a harsh charge, maybe even “over-the-top”. Then again, over-the-top was pretty common in those days. Would you agree that Huss was a personal witness to “over-the-top”?
Even today, though, you and I have talked, and you have posted in numerous threads, the main issue that those charges refer to:

Number 1 is still an issue between us, as we have discussed.
Numbers 2 is, essentially moot, in that the papacy no longer claims for itself the regulating of secular government.
Number 3, it seems, the Catholic Church has “positively reformulated”, as my earlier quote from the CA article implies.

These developments, and the growing understanding on justification is an indication that the harshness of the term “anti-Christ” is unneeded, IMO. That’s not to say that I think Number 1 above is now acceptable. As our communions currently view the claim, we still do not agree on it. Personally, I think “heterodox” is applicable here, but I’m not in charge of the synod, or of pan-Lutheranism.
I might be asked why I don’t leave Lutheranism as a result,and my answer is where do I go? I won’t be Catholic if I believe the claim of universal jurisdiction is heterodox. That would be disrespectful to the Catholic Church, and a deception on my part. Orthodoxy would be an option (that’s where Jaroslav Pelikan went), but their presence here in western NC, and some doctrinal issues limits that possibility. And let’s face it, I’m a western Christian. Traditional Anglicanism would be a possibility. But my understanding of the meaning of the term as the synod has described it, not Topper, is not inconsistent with my view of universal jurisdiction.

I am not defending the term itself, as the modern relationship between our traditions has matured away from such harsh attacks, for the most part, except perhaps by some apologists (on both sides). What I am defending is that our synod has stated clearly that we do not consider individual popes or Catholics to be the “Anti-Christ”, and claims that we do, even when evidence is presented in defense of our position, is a misrepresentation.

The CA article I referenced earlier says:

Would you say that this, too, is damaged control (spin)? If so, then maybe ours is,too. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn’t it a good thing that both of our traditions, in the spirit of current ecumenism, are willing to spin / positively reformulate these previously harsh statements? OK, then, guilty. My synod recognizing what might have been Luther’s far harsher meanings neither fit our modern view of our Catholic siblings nor their communion. That would be consistent with the idea that the charge is historically conditional.

Jon

EDIT: BTW, Randy, I think its an excellent idea that you have listed to book you are reading. I have done so, in response. Maybe others will.

Jon-

In post #400, I noted from the lcms website that it was proposed in 2006 that paragraph 43 be revised.

Do you personally think it should be?

 

[rinnie]

If you go on line you will see all kinds of Protestants stating the the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? One Protestant web site says that1 Tim. 3:15 (the Church is the pillar of truth) means Christianity as a whole.That can’t be so because there needs to be consistency of truth, and mega denominations dont lend themselves to that. What is the Protestant “church?”

TRUE but we have Christ who says the Catholic Church is the One True Church. Who are you going to believe all kinds of Protestants, or Jesus!

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

In post #400, I noted from the lcms website that it was proposed in 2006 that paragraph 43 be revised.

Do you personally think it should be?

Hi Randy,

Here is paragraph 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.)

Hi Randy,
Let me first say that this charge is conditional, and can change regarding the office of the papacy. I say this so that I am not later accused of personal interpretation of doctrine.

While not being sure what clarifications were suggested, I will say that, if left to me, it would be far more clear, that the synod does not now, nor has it ever, intended this to be a personal charge against any Catholic individuals, including the pope. I would also clarify that a resolution of the teachings, agreeable to both traditions, would make the charge null and void. This is already stated elsewhere, but needs to be clear and concise.

I might personally also say that I see far more “antichristian doctrines” eminating from some protestant groups, liberal and otherwise, than from the CC.

Jon