Skip to comments.(WELS Lutheran) STATEMENT ON THE ANTICHRIST (Open)
Posted on 07/07/2008 6:33:25 AM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
Is the above article still an accurate statement of Lutheran belief on the papacy in general? Or just the WELS?
(Believe it or not, I'm just trying to find out the above answers...not trying to stir up a hornet's nest)
Yes... the papist hornets on this website are also awaiting a response.
I gotta disagree with Luther on this one. Obama is the antichrist.
I believe you are quite right.
You may have WELS confused with another group.
Isn’t a deceiver supposed to precede the antichrist?
We are seeing a world class deceiver on stage, running for leader of the free world. I think he’s even managed to deceive himself.
Well, in the book of Revelation, the two beasts are described like the Roman emperor and the high priest of the emperor cult. Furthermore, the “number of the beast”, 666, corresponds to the title “Nero Ceasar”.
That does not mean that a preterist interpretation is the only valid one-—it may mean John was saying that history will repeat itself again with the same emperor/imperial cult motif surfacing to persecute the people of God, like it repeated itself with the Roman empire.
From what I have been told by Lutherans, the WELS (third largest group after ELCA and LCMS) is considered a bit radical. I believe they also dropped James from the NT (or some other such book that Luther didn’t like but left in).
I would say this is a very accurate statement of belief for the WELS but not Lutherans in General.
I would suspect the “open question” theory would be how it is treated among some of the more traditionally minded Lutherans.
As far as I know, the ELCA considers both the Bible and the Book of Concord as historical documents with only elements of truth.
In the LCMS, we consider Luther's belief as only having elements of truth.
Interestingly, the pastors in the LCMS are required to believe the Book of Concord is in complete agreement with the Bible, but this is not required of the congregation.
I think I'll mail the author a copy of my tagline.
When all is said and done, it's really nothing more than pride and presumption, allied to an absence of the virtue of prudence, which underlies writing like this.
St. Peter, in his second letter, when referring to the writings of St. Paul, says that parts of Paul's writings are difficult to understand and that they are often twisted by those who wish to use them for their own purposes. You'd think that an admonition from Scripture itself, that certain parts of Scripture are difficult to understand, would give pause to the headstrong and foolhardy. Apparently not.
Aside from that, I'd just draw attention to the scripturally unsound belief that the Antichrist is an office and not a man ("the Papacy is the Antichrist"). That logically implies that the role of Antichrist is an elected post and that the present Pope was not the Antichrist before he was elected in 2005. Not solid Scriptural scholarship nor even good English.
Let "the Bible sez" crowd continue to argue amongst themselves and tie themselves up in knots about their personal takes on Sacred Scripture.
LOL!!! i only clicked on this article because i was just sure the Lutherans and proclaimed Obama as the antichrist. Especially in light of his 75,000 strong audience of adoring fans for his acceptance of the nomination. that screams out antichrist right there.
As a WELS member, I can you tell 100% that statement is false. We have not dropped any books from the NT.
Thinking of converting there Mark? ;-)
1 John 4:1 do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God
If the early Church had the authority to test the spirit, then the modern Church should as well.
An individual man or institution as an infallible interpretor is not an Apostolic Teaching. It is a human rationalization for the power of Rome.
With the Holy Spirit, if they listen and submit, truth will win. Otherwise their works will burn up and they'll be left naked before God.
**We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. **
I find it difficult to believe that Lutherans actually believe this.
I’m sure it is a surprise to Pope Benedict XVI.
Just Catholic Bashing nonsense, in my opinion.
The Pope has no power of his own. He cannot (in his own name) excommunicate any person, revise the liturgy, or force anyone to do anything. He does possess the authority to teach, but this only in Christ's name; should any teaching of a given pope contradict that which Christ taught, whether directly or through the mouths of previous popes, he would cease to be pope. In other words, no pope can ever teach (for example) that abortion is not a sin or that one can attain eternal life by means other than Jesus Christ; were a given pope to do so, he would prove himself an antipope by definition.
Here is an interesting tidbit...at the time the bible was assembled, the capital of the roman empire was the city of seven hills, more commonly known as Constantinople(Constantinople was actually built on top of seven hills, and the structure to this day still supports the city )this city is located in turkey, and today is known as Istanbul. Could the antichrist originate in this city? Does that mean the antichrist is muslim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.