posted
Martin Luther was one of the first to call the pope the antichrist. This is most unfortunate and I cannot agree with his bitter judgment against Rome. BTW... Nor can I agree with your assessment that HC is like all of protestantism and is just a fad that will run its course and fade away.
Of course virtually every single Christian church, Catholic and Protestant, IC and HC, believes and declares that it is a church that is true to the message of Christ and true to the gospel of salvation. And yet there is only one church that is indeed the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. That is the church invisible, the one universal church that is referred to in the Apostle's creed. It is invisible because only God can look into the hearts of people to see where true faith resides. This is the ONE TRUE CHURCH and contains Christians of all denominations and also Christians of no denomination. The individual members of this one universal church are all people of true and sincere faith in Christ as savior and Lord. And these are the the ones that I am glad to call my brothers and sisters in Christ.
When the disciples of Jesus saw a man proclaiming the message of God's Kingdom they tried to stop him because he was not from within their circle. But Jesus urged them to let the man go on teaching. For if he is teaching the gospel then he is indeed a brother whether he happens to be from your own little circle or not.
Sorry, but I was so shocked by your last statement I had to comment. Did you mean to discredit your own faith?
quote:Martin Luther was one of the first to call the pope the antichrist. This is most unfortunate and I cannot agree with his bitter judgment against Rome.
I think you have just denied your own faith, haven't you?
quote:Martin Luther considered justification to be the "first and chief article" of belief, and the the "ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines." But beliefs about the precise mechanism of justification is perhaps the most difficult to attempt to harmonize between Protestants and Roman Catholics. It was one of the most important theological disputes of the Reformation... Disagreements over the nature of Justification were "in the 16th century, a principal cause of the division of the Western Church" into Roman Catholicism and Protestantism... The Joint Declaration was able to resolve some differences. They [Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists] agreed that the remaining differences were not sufficiently substantial for the 16th century condemnations to continue in force.
The last sentence explains your modern tolerance. You may feel that identifying a false church as Babylon and its false doctrines as wine is bigotry and hatred and that we should be forgiving and embrace her in Christian love. But is it love to mislead 900,000,000+ people and hold them captive apart from the graces of God? How can we condone such a thing. We should speak loudly against it but instead we are like dumb dogs, who cannot bark, lying down, taking slumber. But She is not asleep believe me! She knows exactly what she is doing.
Perhaps you can deny your Protestant roots and turn around and walk back to Her open arms. But I will stand with your Martin Luther, "so help me God!"
And now you wish to be reconciled to the HC. Perhaps you are a cloud without water, a wolf in sheep's clothing prowling for those with itching ears. God knows. How far are you willing to compromise your beliefs for the sake of unity, my brother?
And, BTW, Martin Luther was not the first. "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
quote: "There are many who are disposed to attribute any fear of Roman Catholicism in the United States to bigotry or childishness. Such see nothing in the character and attitude of Romanism that is hostile to our free institutions, or find nothing portentous in its growth. Let us, then, first compare some of the fundamental principles of our government with those of the Catholic Church. "The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX., in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: 'The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience, are a most pestilential error--a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a State.' The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized 'those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,' also 'all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.'"
From JOSIAH STRONG, D.D., "OUR COUNTRY," PP. 46-48.
She would like to control every man's conscience. Even God does not operate so. God created man a free moral agent. It was at great cost that God bestowed this great gift of freedom of choice to man. It resulted in the death of the Son of God. But it is obvious that God was willing to accept the responsibility even before he created man. If God should now revoke or even curtail that freedom He would in that very act deny Himself. But She is not afraid to exert Her authority where She has not been granted it. God reasons with man while She uses torture and coercion. Join yourself to Her and She will prove to be the worst task-master. Even now Her deadly wound is healing and the world marvels at Her power and influence. Beware what you do.
posted
To disagree with Martin Luther on a few things like this is certainly not a matter of denying my faith. I also disagree with Martin Luther in his strong anti-semetic writings. In that case I believe that all Lutheran denominations today disagree with Luther's inflamatory writings against the Jews and have publicly apologized for Luther's obvious prejudices. Similarly, most Lutherans today (unfortunately not all) disagree with Luther's remarks about the pope being the antichrist. Nor do I agree with Luther that the world is flat. I am a contemporary Lutheran, not a 15th century Lutheran.
The point I would simply make is that my faith isn't really in Martin Luther. My faith is rather in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, I am closest in agreement with Lutheran theology in most matters of Christian doctrine.
posted
Sorry Rich, I was probably still editing my remarks when you responded. You may want to read my remarks in their entirety.
Hopefully, your faith is not merely founded upon Jesus Christ but the Truth of Jesus Christ. There are many false christs. Martin Luther did not make up the doctrine of Justification by Faith. It was a Biblical principle recorded in scriptures by inspiration of God. Martin Luther was merely the instrument God used to bring that to light at the time appointed.
If you followed Martin Luther the man you would smoke cigars, drink beer, cuss, and cherish bigotry. Wow! Maybe we have more followers of Martin Luther than previously known.
posted
Right... my faith is founded upon Jesus Christ and also upon the truth of Jesus Christ which is the Gospel of salvation. I accept Holy Scripture as the source and norm for teaching. And I also acknowledge that the Gospel itself is the one true key for all of scripture. There is no passage of scripture that can be properly understood apart from the gospel of salvation which is the truth of Jesus Christ. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God... all things came into being in Him and through Him and for Him... including even the Holy Scriptures themselves. Therefore to rightly understand any part of the Scriptures one needs to rightly understand the living word Jesus Christ. This is the truth upon which my faith is founded.
I think you are dodging the bullet. As it stands right now either Martin Luther was wrong or you are. You agree that the Holy Scripture is of no private interpretation but came from God through holy men of old. Yet, Martin Luther took one bold stand on that Word and you oppose him by saying he was wrong. Martin Luther stood his ground in the face of extreme hatred and certain death. His was a powerful testimony that rocked the world! God is looking for just such men. Men who will stand true to the faith though all the world opposes them.
You profess a faith in Jesus Christ but deny that same profession to Martin Luther. We have heard him speak. Now we will hear you. Is a man justified by faith alone or by faith and works as the Catholic church teaches. Is the sacrifice of Jesus all-sufficient to atone for our sins or must we partake of the sacred rites and sacraments to help atone for our sins. Would a few hundred hail Marys do it? How many Holy Days of obligation must one attend to fill the deficiency of Christ's cross? When the blood of Jesus is spilt to justify the repentant sinner then how many days must that same sinner spend in purgatory before being purified from sin and ready to enter heaven? If there is no other name under heaven by which men are saved but that of Jesus Christ then why should we call out to Mary as co-redemtrix? If Jesus is the only mediator between God and man then what other saints should we pray to for intercession? Does John 3:16 say that God so hated the world that men need to pray to the compassionate Mother Mary to intercede in their behalf before an angry God?
How can you turn your back on your Protestant roots to coddle the doctrines of demons? Theirs is the the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. No brother, you are on shaky ground. You don't know what you believe. In fact, your opening statement proves it. A person cannot believe in the validity of both the HC and the IC when each invalidates the other. They are diametrically opposed to each other. There is no harmony between them. Now one might say that they believe there are true believers in both groups but one person cannot hold both "systems" to be valid.
Please, let's hear your response to what you believe. How does your faith align with that of the Catholic church? And, if you also believe the Catholic church is valid then why are you a Lutheran and not a Catholic. The Catholics also hold that there is "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." That excludes your Lutheran church and invalidates it.
Hear what She boasts!
quote:We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest? --Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, In an allocution on December 9th, 1854
Open your eyes, brother! Does one really receive the body of Christ by eating bread over which the priest has pronounced "Hoc est corpus" which commands the Lord to descend from heaven into the wafer in an act called transubstantiation? No wonder we transliterate it as "Hocus Pocus" which means some sort of contemptuous magical trickery--which were the butt of Luther's bitter ridicule even as early as 1527.
Perhaps each Pope has not played the part of antichrist, perhaps some were good men, but certainly the office of Pope is anti-christ if not The Antichrist. And the church is that Mysterious Whore, the Mother of harlots.
posted
The catholic church and the pope did not exist when the apostles wrote of the anti-christ. Nor would they exist in the lifetimes of the original recievers of the epistles.
Likewise, I have to ask the same thing about the catholic church being the harlot - it didn't exist. Both the antichrist and the harlot were referred to in the present.
These, among other things, pose a problem with what you write though I do believe that the catholic system is antichristian in many respects.
You make what at first seems like a good argument. But consider that the Old Testament spoke of the coming Christ who as yet had not been revealed.
quote: 1 Peter 1
10 ¶ Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
And, Paul wrote about the coming of the "man of sin" in this way: (2Thess 2:7) "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."
No Christian should disagree that the Roman Empire certainly opposed Jesus Christ. After failing to kill Him at birth they finally put Him to death on the cross. But a study of prophecy and (now) tracing history we find that Rome was indeed the fourth kingdom. But it was never conquered. Babylon (Head of Gold) succumbed to Mede-Persia, Mede-Persia (Chest of silver) to Greece (Belly of bronze), and Greece to Rome (Legs of Iron). Yet Rome did fall. But in its place stood up the Papacy (the stout little horn that speak blasphemy).
I have written on this before in this cafe so I won't go into a lot of detail but basically Justinian II gave the Bishop of Rome his seat, his power, and his authority. See Justinian's Code of Law.
Scripture says it this way.
quote:Re 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Oh, but the dragon gave the beast his power, you might say. Yes, true! But in Revelation 12 we find that the dragon makes reference to Satan (being cast out of heaven) and to Rome who stood by to slay the baby Jesus. So while Satan gave the beast his power, seat, and authority, it was done under the guise of Rome.
So Rome gave way to the Papacy and the Pope enveloped the power of the Emperor and entitled himself the Vicar of Christ. He married church and state. During the Dark Ages it was the Pope who instated or dethroned monarchs. So Papal Rome was simply a continuation of Pagan Rome but with a Religious overtone. In reality, you could trace this mystery of iniquity from Babylon forward. Scripture confirms this: "the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion." Greece is the leopard, Mede-Persia the bear, and Babylon the lion. Notice that in vision John give the kingdom in reverse of what Daniel states.
Now when we consider that the Pope claims to speak for God on earth, that Church canon pretends to supersede scripture, that the church declares Herself infallible, and this self-proclaimed continuation of the earthly priesthood when Christ destroyed that system; what other power on earth could Paul be describing when he writes, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."
If that is not enough then picture the procession of priests and the midnight mass on television each Christmas in your mind. I will tell you what you see. You see men garbed in robes of several colors which designate their position. You see the golden goblet filled with wine and the wafer held high above. In what color does She array Herself--Purple and scarlet. You see... "the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication." That cup, btw, is filled with Her own doctrines, not those of the Bible.
You also smell the awful odor of dried blood because She has blood on Her hands from the millions of martyrs she has put to death. You see "the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."
Something else you see. That this Woman (church) has reigned over kings of the earth and will again do so. "The woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." It took a little French Corporal to defy Her and later as Emperor he inflicted a deadly wound to this "beast" by dissolving the Papal government and setting up an Italian civil government. That wound lasted until 1929 when a concordat was signed between Mussolini and the Pope giving back some property and establishing the Papal City again as its own government with its own army and currency and representative to the U.N. It has not yet completely healed because She is still held at bay by contrary laws, but it began to heal then.
Yes, David, it appeared you were correct at first. But there is just too much evidence if you can get past the theories which place the last 7 years of the 70 weeks in the distant future. As long as we hold to those none of this makes much sense.
(Any reference to the Pope refers to the Office of the Pope and not to a particular man.)
Just saying that I am not pointing to a particular man as the antichrist but that whatever man occupies the office of Pope also occupies the office of antichrist--that is the function of that exalted position as the "Vicar [substitute] of Christ".
quote: [14th century. Via Anglo-Norman vicare < Latin vicarius "substitute" < vic- "change, place"; because the vicar acted as a substitute for the rector]
--Encarta World English Dictionary
That the Pope--whatever man holds the office--is the Vicar of Christ is their own words.
quote: The office, indeed, of preaching, that is, of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely, of the bishops whom "the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God."(15) It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all :hat pertains to morals and faith.
posted
Jeff, you quote from Revelation but antichrist isn't mentioned a single time in that book of the Bible. In other words, the Beast of Revelation could not be the antichrist.
The antichrist is not a 'the' as much as a 'they' - there are many.
Again, the Roman Catholic Church was not out there when John wrote of the antichrist in the present tense.
John, in his epistles, used the word "now" in his warnings about antichrist. Nothing suggests that he was projecting into a distant future era after the death of those to whom he wrote.
Btw, the Roman Government of apostolic times is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church, which came into being much later.
Here are the four New Testament antichrist texts from the NIV version:
quote:1John 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even NOW many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 1John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 1John 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even NOW is already in the world. 2John 7 MANY deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
When did the RCC, despite all their errors, not acknowledge that JC came in the flesh?
Again, you make what sounds like a very good argument. However, many profess belief in Jesus with their mouths but deny Him in their lives.
quote: Men may speak fluently upon doctrines, and may express strong faith in theories, but do they possess Christlike meekness and love? A spirit contrary to the love, humility, meekness, and gentleness of Christ denies him, whatever may be the profession. We deny Christ when we speak evil one of another. We deny him in foolish talking, in jesting and joking. We deny him when we have a selfish spirit, criticising our brethren. We deny him in seeking to be first, seeking honor one of another. We may deny Christ in outward appearance by gratifying a proud heart, by lifting up the soul unto vanity, and by uncourteous behavior.
It's easy to see why Paul said there were MANY antichrists in his time.
Show me a humble, meek Pope that doesn't accept the worship of men. Sure, he denies Christ every day of his life! Every time he attempts to be the guiding conscience of a single person. Every time he accepts the bowing worship of men. Every time he speaks ex cathedra he denies Jesus as Lord of the body.
quote: Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church..."
Now, what did your verses say about the man who denied Jesus is the Christ?
I believe that another way we deny Jesus came in the flesh is to believe and teach that "we cannot live a perfect life as Jesus did, nor does He expect us to--now here's the clincher--because he knows we are only human." Doesn't that contrast the life of Jesus with the natural man. There was but one difference. Jesus did not posses a propensity to sin but He did take on our human flesh with its millennium of devolution. He can identify with our weakness.
Now, we have no part in our justification. There is nothing we can do to justify ourselves. All our works are filthy rags. But we do have a part to play in our sanctification. Peter writes that through exceeding great promises we are "partakers of the divine nature." This is our sanctification. Jesus lives in our hearts by faith. But faith without love of Christ is simply determination, isn't it?
One of Jesus' tempations was to use His divinity while a man. Had He done so without the Father's permission He would have sinned and foiled the plan of salvation. But He did not. This means we have access to the same victorious power that kept Jesus free of sin. What does 1John say about abiding in Christ? "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him."
Does this influence your thinking at all?
Whether or not the beast of Revelation is antichrist is yet to be revealed.
Email this page to someone.
