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.
You may have WELS confused with another group.
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As far as I know, the ELCA considers both the Bible and the Book of Concord as historical documents with only elements of truth.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.
Thinking of converting there Mark? ;-)
**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.
Ping to read & respond later
Having been around LCMC for many decades this posting is not a factual belief of members.
Bashing doesn’t elevate your personal belief.
WELS
has long been about as
exclusivistically loopy as the RC edifice has been.
I don’t think either side of the two have much grounds to point the finger at the other on those scores.