And now for the "why don't"s...

So the opinion of "The Barbarian" it the opinion of all 1 BILLION Catholics?

And yet in this thread, you appeal to authority (a locical fallacy). You appeal to Dr. Kurt E. Marquart's essay "The "Marks" of the Church," which is what? The opinion or a writer. You cannot criticize Catholics pulling from early church fathers and then rely on modern church writers to convey your points.

You are highly confused over what Catholics believe. Are you the type who will find a Catholic on the treat, ask them a question where they say, "I don't know," and then base that as the rule, that Catholics just "don't know?"

I could go to the confirmands from my Confirmation Class and they wouldn't know a thing about Lutheranism because they just don't care. You cannot use the ignorant or somewhat misguided to make the rule of norm.

For the umptenth time....Muslims and Jews are included in the plan for salvation just as non-Christians are in the plan for salvation. WE'RE ALL IN THE PLAN FOR SALVATION! It is whether or not we come to know Jesus that actually gets us saved. Either way, there are no children born on this earth that God has condemned from the get go. He wants all saved, so all are in His plan. Get it straight.

 

Ah time to get back into the thick of things (comp crashed gloriously). Dojo, about your quote, the LCMS website is huge so to find a quote that small is like finding a needle in a haystack.

You really seem to misunderstand the concept of the Confessions. The final authority on all doctrine is the Bible. Every piece of doctrine drawn up in the Lutheran church (including the Confessions and catechisms) is based on the Bible. We hold the confessions to be the correct interpretation of the Bible, but we also realize that the Confessions are a work of man and are subject to error, therefore can and will be changed should solid Biblical evidence prove some part to be false. The main authority that the confessions governs is who we share altar/pulpit fellowship with it does not supercede or equal the authority of the Bible which you are claiming.

Your shot at the catechism is a wasted argument. Most likely not your fault particularly if you have one of the older additions. Not many people realize that Luther's small catechism is only like the first 20 pages of the older additions, it only contained the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's prayer. Its purpose is to help a Christian in their lives as a Christian learn some basic Christian knowledge. When Luther wrote the small catechism it was in response to parish visits where they discovered that some of minister much less the laypeople didn't even know the Lord's prayer and ten commandments much less any other part of the Bible. So he wrote it to give them some material to aid in teaching and memorization since so few people could read. I recently heard that Luther's small catechism is unique among similar documents because it is comprised of 80-90% Biblical passages either quoted or paraphrased.

Also your comment about the similarity of the belief in faith and works is incorrect. The rcc teaches in a simplified form faith+works=righteousness before God, (aka via antiquia), while Lutherans teach a "complete" seperation of faith and works. Faith makes us righteous before God, while works makes us righteous only before man(has nothing to do with our righteousness before God). I placed complete in (") marks because we believe that love and gratitude for the faith created in us by God creates good works(but having no bearing on righteousness before God).

 

Amen GodMetal! Your Soooo Smart!

 

"they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture."

What are these criteria?

 

Hi Godmetal,

You wrote, "The rcc teaches in a simplified form faith+works=righteousness before God, (aka via antiquia)"

Can you further detail "faith+works=righteousness" as to what this means, and would you please define "antiquia" in the sense that you're using it?

What is "faith" (as opposed to works) in Lutheran theology?

God bless,

Carson

[ March 09, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

So the opinion of "The Barbarian" it the opinion of all 1 BILLION Catholics?

And yet in this thread, you appeal to authority (a locical fallacy). You appeal to Dr. Kurt E. Marquart's essay "The "Marks" of the Church," which is what? The opinion or a writer. You cannot criticize Catholics pulling from early church fathers and then rely on modern church writers to convey your points.

You are highly confused over what Catholics believe. Are you the type who will find a Catholic on the treat, ask them a question where they say, "I don't know," and then base that as the rule, that Catholics just "don't know?"

I could go to the confirmands from my Confirmation Class and they wouldn't know a thing about Lutheranism because they just don't care. You cannot use the ignorant or somewhat misguided to make the rule of norm.

For the umptenth time....Muslims and Jews are included in the plan for salvation just as non-Christians are in the plan for salvation. WE'RE ALL IN THE PLAN FOR SALVATION! It is whether or not we come to know Jesus that actually gets us saved. Either way, there are no children born on this earth that God has condemned from the get go. He wants all saved, so all are in His plan. Get it straight.</font>[/QUOTE]That's jut rediculous! He got hid ideas from his church!!! He is Catholic and anyone who reads that thrad knows tha the is opiniated! He didn't say, "I don't know." That is the dumbest argument you have come up with so far. Let's ask him! Hey Barbarian! We need to know! Where did you learn those things? Your mother? School? The Boys club? CHURCH? Most times people learn religious philosophy at CHURCH!

[ March 09, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: tulpje ]

 

So the opinion of "The Barbarian" it the opinion of all 1 BILLION Catholics?

And yet in this thread, you appeal to authority (a locical fallacy). You appeal to Dr. Kurt E. Marquart's essay "The "Marks" of the Church," which is what? The opinion or a writer. You cannot criticize Catholics pulling from early church fathers and then rely on modern church writers to convey your points.

You are highly confused over what Catholics believe. Are you the type who will find a Catholic on the treat, ask them a question where they say, "I don't know," and then base that as the rule, that Catholics just "don't know?"

I could go to the confirmands from my Confirmation Class and they wouldn't know a thing about Lutheranism because they just don't care. You cannot use the ignorant or somewhat misguided to make the rule of norm.

For the umptenth time....Muslims and Jews are included in the plan for salvation just as non-Christians are in the plan for salvation. WE'RE ALL IN THE PLAN FOR SALVATION! It is whether or not we come to know Jesus that actually gets us saved. Either way, there are no children born on this earth that God has condemned from the get go. He wants all saved, so all are in His plan. Get it straight.</font>[/QUOTE]That's jut rediculous! He got hid ideas from his church!!! He is Catholic and anyone who reads that thrad knows tha the is opiniated! He didn't say, "I don't know." That is the dumbest argument you have come up with so far. Let's ask him! Hey Barbarian! We need to know! Where did you learn those things? Your mother? School? The Boys club? CHURCH? Most times people learn religious philosophy at CHURCH!</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the kind words...

Please tell me again how many Catholic services you have been to? I've been to nearly 100 since I've been going. There is not and has never been a homily about "the salvation of Jews and Muslims." The way you speak of it is as if this is something the Catholic Church pushes with all their might. In fact, it's a single page in the Catechism (which has nearly a thousand pages).

You know what? I think I should dig through these forums and find all of your logical fallcies, because obviously, since you stated them, they must be the universal teachings of the church!

I've made plenty of mistakes about the Catholic Church on here, because I'm still learning. When I'm wrong, I either drop the subject or point out that I was wrong. My Catholic brethern clear up issues that I've made too much of, as well. Unfortunately, you take it that everyone here is always right, and so their answer is the final answer. Congratulations on being gullible, as well as totally misunderstanding my analogy.

Man, if you make one mistake on Lutheran doctrine, you won't mind if I really thrash you for it too, right?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]First off, you didn't identify where your Q&A is from. Please do so.

Secondly, I told you where the link was (bottom of the Beliefs and Practices page, where it says "Being a Lutheran." It's on the second page of the PDF file, righhand column, second paragraph(I believe). Hope that narrows it down for you.

Thirdly, this is a lie, because Luther was Catholic up until the Reformation, and until he split from the Church, he accepted them as the inspired Word of God, becasue they were part of the Canon.

Fourthly, this is a direct quote from the Lutheran Cyclopedia, published by Concordia Publishing House:

"[The Apocrypha had been] used ... by the framers of the Book of Concord, [who made] no pronouncements on the extent of the OT Canon." [p. 132]

For verification, this book is recommended by the LCMS website for further reading on issues regarding Lutheranism.

You know, I chalk this one right up there with the Lutheran Confessions which calls Mary, "the blessed Virgin Mary," "the pure, [Holy], and always Virgin Mary,", that "she is truely the mother of God ... and truely remained a Virgin," that she is "most worthy of the most ample honors," and that she "prays for the Church."

Gee, we have Mary praying for the Church, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was pure and Holy. Please note that the brackets on "Holy" are in the confessions...I didn't add the word, that's how it's written.

Of course, we don't see Lutherans calling her Holy (they argue she is not). We see Lutherans claiming she had kids after Jesus. We have Lutherans who do NOT give her "the most ample honors," and who deny that saints pray for us. It's all here in the Lutheran Confessions, and you deny it.

Don't tell me I don't know my Lutheran doctrine.

Also, Carson is right...the "criteria" is not presented, so how do we even know what to base this assumption on?

Lastly, earlier a statement was made that Catholics use the creeds also...yeah...they were written by the Catholic Church. Council of Nicene, anyone?

 

tulpje,
Are you asserting that every opinion posted on here by a Catholic is official Catholic teaching?

I hope not. Because there are many areas where the Catholic Church has not spoken and where there is much speculation among Catholics and between Catholics and non-Catholics. And then there are cafeteria people and disenting people who continue to call themselves Catholic but who do not agree with official Church teaching.

It is essential to distinguish between what is official Catholic Church teaching and practice and what is not. And to never hold something up as Catholic teaching and practice unless it truly is offically Catholic.

Pauline

 

1) See my above post - I tried to further tell you where to find the quote.

2) And yet Catholic Tradition is the same thing; Tradition feeds off the Bible, and Tradition is the correct understanding of Scripture. You call yours "The Lutheran Confessions," and we call ours the "Catholic Faith Tradition." You have a Catechism and so do we. Both feed off the Word of God, and both are inseperable from Sacred Scripture. You also admit that Lutheranism could change if a reason came up for it. How then do Lutherans condemn the Catholic Church for "changing" as time has passed? The Church is alive, and as we better understand the Word of God, we grow with it in knowledge and wisdom.

3) My point still remains, though I'd like to make it more clear. I've never known of a Catechumen (spelling?) who studied the Lutheran Confessions. Everyone I know has been through Luther's Small Catechism, which hardly teaches the fullness of the faith. In fact, I hadn't read the Lutheran Confessions until last year. Furthermore, I doubt many average Lutherans have read the confessions either, nor know the fullness of what Luther taught. I feel this is a disservice, and sometimes I feel that things are kept hidden (read about everything I said about Mary that can be found in the Confessions).

4) It's still just wording. You just said that works are necessary, but you're blinded by it. If works are always fruit of the vine, and the vine is dead without the fruit (read James again), then the vine must have the fruit to be useful. If we have faith but do not live in it, then our faith is futile. We must be alive in Christ. Works do not save us, nor do Catholics believe such. You believe Catholics believe such, even though we always tell you we don't. You don't listen; you have selective eyesight on here.

The works themselves are unimportant and do not save us, but they MUST be there or else we don't have real faith. Works don't save. Faith saves, but good works are attached to that faith if it is alive.

Lutherans believe this, as do Catholics, but Lutherans insist on believe that Catholics believe they are saved by their works. When Lutherans stop believing this false notion, the world will be a much better place.

[ March 09, 2002, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: DojoGrant ]

 

This is so intense that I had to reprint it in it's entirelty. Oringanally, I was looking for material on the apocrophylia, then I was intrested in the fact that it confirmed here what we have been talking about, "If anything, the Roman Catholic Church has changed for the worse, since today it not only holds the same false doctrines that were proclaimed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, but now it also has added the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, the possibility of salvation for the heathen, and the higher-critical approach to Scripture to the list of its false teachings." However, this is so compelling...the evidence of the pope as the antichrist... Please everyone read this.

http://www.wels.net/sab/frm-qa.html
A biblical understanding of the doctrine of the Antichrist is especially important at a time when Lutherans around the world have signed agreements on justification with Rome which really are no agreements. The pope has recently affirmed that Lutheran churches which have not preserved apostolic succession cannot even be called churches. All other churches can be considered saving churches only to the degree that their members are in imperfect communion with the bishop of Rome. In the recent jubilee year, the pope reaffirmed the practice of issuing indulgences. In spite of all this, Lutherans are negotiating the terms under which they can submit themselves to the papacy. Yet if we study Scripture and history, we see that nothing has changed since Luther made the clear declaration that the pope is the very Anti-Christ. If anything, the Roman Catholic Church has changed for the worse, since today it not only holds the same false doctrines that were proclaimed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, but now it also has added the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, the possibility of salvation for the heathen, and the higher-critical approach to Scripture to the list of its false teachings.

There are two points which by themselves are enough to make the pope an antichrist. First, he makes himself God when he takes to himself the right to make divine laws binding on the church. It is a sin to eat meat on Friday. Then it isn't. Priests are denied marriage, a gift of God. The list goes on and on. Here the pope denies the authority of God the Father. Second, he curses anyone who believe the most important teaching of the Bible, forgiveness of sins by grace alone by faith alone. He denies the essence of the work of Christ, God the Son. These two teachings make the pope an antichrist. The fact that he fits all the other characteristics of the false teacher who would come from Rome make him not just an antichrist, but the Antichrist.

Your questions basically challenge three passages: 1 John 2, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 17, so we will take them in that order.

1 John 2

It is ironic that the passages which provide us with the title "The Antichrist" tell us very little about him. The title comes from passages in John's epistles in which he is discussing, not the great Antichrist, but the other lesser antichrists who appear throughout the history of the church and some specific antichrists who were a threat to the church in his own day. John warns:

18 Dear children, this is the last hour, and as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. 22 Who is such a liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the sort of antichrist I am warning you about -he denies the Father and the Son. (From 1 Jn 2:18,19,22, my translation).

The main grammatical problem in this passage is how to render the presence or absence of the Greek article in the English translation since the idioms of the languages differ. In the first occurrence of antichrist in v. 18, the Greek has no article, but because John is here talking about a specific individual, the NIV is correct when it adds an article to the English translation and renders, "The antichrist is coming." I have tried to convey the same meaning by capitalizing Antichrist to make it a proper name and yet reflecting the absence of the Greek article in my translation. In verse 22 antichrist has the article, but John here is not talking about the great Antichrist, but about the sort of lesser antichrist he had previously mentioned in verse 18. For this reason I have rendered the article as an article of previous reference or a generic article and paraphrased "the sort of antichrist I am warning you about."

In all of the translations you refer to it is clear that John is not talking about one person but about a group of persons.

Similar references to such lesser antichrists who operate with the same spirit as the great Antichrist occur in 1 Jn 4:3 and 2 Jn 7. In 3 Jn:9,10 we see an example of such incipient popishness in the church in the mini-pope Diotrephes, who loved the primacy and arrogantly opposed the Apostle John.

All that John's letters teach us about the great Antichrist is that this doctrine was so well known in the early church that John could base his discussions of lesser antichrists on his readers' previous knowledge of the Antichrist. Since the problem which John is addressing in his letter is false teachers who arise in the church and who arrogantly oppose God's truth, we may conclude that both the lesser antichrists and the great Antichrist fall into this category.

Although all the apostles taught the same doctrine, they did not always use the same terminology. The one whom John called "Antichrist" was called "the Man of Sin" or "the Man of Lawlessness" by Paul. For unknown reasons it was John's term "Antichrist" which became the standard term of the church, even though it was Paul who had given a more thorough description of this person in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12:

3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not cone until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

In spite of the importance of this passage, we must pass it by with only a brief summary of its description of Antichrist. The power and spirit of Antichrist were already secretly at work in Paul's day, but the great Antichrist could not come out into the open and develop fully until the person and thing which were restraining him (probably the Roman emperor and empire) were removed from the scene. Although Antichrist is called a man, his power is at work from Paul's time until the end of the world, so he is a succession of persons, a dynasty, not an individual. He is above all a religious deceiver who seats himself in God's Temple, the church. He usurps divine authority to himself, promotes the lie which opposes the gospel, and supports his delusions with counterfeit miracles. The essence of his work is that he leads souls to destruction. This description alone is enough to justify the conclusion that the Pope of Rome is the Great Antichrist, since he alone fits all the marks in the highest degree.

Scripture, however, gives further evidence, which should be more than enough to convict the Pope in the minds of the uncertain. Although John does not use the term "Antichrist" in Revelation, he there gives a more thorough treatment of this topic, which he touched on only indirectly in his letters. Revelation 17:

1 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. 2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.. 3 Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. 7 Then the angel said to me: Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. 9 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet cone; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. 12 "The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers. 15 Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.

The match-ups of this chapter with the history of the papacy are so frequent and so specific that it is very difficult to avoid the connection. Even a number of Roman Catholic commentators acknowledge that the Babylon of Revelation 17 must be Rome, but they try to deflect its condemnations to a revived pagan Roman Empire. The correspondences with papal history are so many that it is difficult to mention them all in a paper of this scope.

The prostitute, who represents the apostate church as she often does in Scripture (Ezekiel 16, 23, Hosea), forms a sad contrast with the faithful woman of Revelation 12. She rides on a beast which apparently is the same beast of government which appeared in Revelation 13. The church now dominates the state and makes the state serve its purposes. At first glance John's readers, who were being persecuted by the government, must have thought that such a passing of power to the church would be a wonderful day. Who of them would have guessed how disastrous it would be when the church dominated a diminished Roman Empire? A church which is catholic--that is which rules over all peoples and nations, a church rich with gems, precious metals, and rich garments, a church which has more annual revenue than all the kings of Europe--wouldn't such a church be a great blessing to the world? But what do we see in the vision? We see a church which is in adulterous alliance with kings and yet tries to lord it over them. (The German emperor who had to stand in the snow at Canosa to seek the Pope's forgivenss and the Pope's Interdict on England are but two examples in a long, sad train of such events.) We see a church lavishing its wealth on castles and great works of art and luxurious living. (One would think that her princes would at least blush when they parade in scarlet and purple.) Most incredible of all we see a church drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of Waldensians and Albigensians, of Savanarola and Huss, of victims of the Inquisition, of Netherlanders and Germans. We see a church hated even by her allies, the kings of the earth, who turn against her and devour her. (Recall the captivity of the papacy in Avignon by the French kings, the actions of Henry VIII to seize church property in England, and anticlericalism and state-church conflicts over property through the centuries right down to our own time.) The kings of the earth live in a love-hate relationship with the prostitute church, fascinated by her pomp and glory, but angered by her power and pretensions. (Papal visits of recent years still demonstrate these conflicting passions.)

In Revelation 18 even her enemies mourn the apostate church's fall because she embodies everything that is magnificent in human achievement, the greatest art, architecture and music, the greatest scholarship and humanistic endeavors. Yet all her pomp has been achieved at the cost of sacrificing her loyalty to God, so that his people are warned:

Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues.

To avoid her we must identify her. To make her identity more certain her connection with Rome is made clear. Who of John's readers could fail to catch the significance of the seven hills of the city? Furthermore, she is identified with the culmination of seven kings or kingdoms. The "king who is" must be the pagan Rome of John's day. The five who have fallen are apparently Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece, the past kingdoms that oppressed God's people. The seventh and eighth kingdoms, which belong together, are the unholy allies, the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire and other kingdoms allied with the papacy.

This identification of the Antichrist with Rome is confirmed by the prophecies of Daniel 7:

2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it. 5 Hand there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!' 6 After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

7 "After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast--terrifying and frightening and very powerful It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. 8 While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully." 11 Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) 17 "The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 19 Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws--the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell--the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. 23 He gave me this explanation: .The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, treading it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to chance the set tines and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time." 26 But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom. (Daniel 7:2-8 , 11-12, 17, 19-27)

From the context of Daniel it is clear that the first three empires are Babylon, which carried Judah into captivity, Persia which nearly destroyed Israel through Haman's plot, and the Greek Empire of Alexander which eventually led to the terrible persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes. The fourth empire must therefore be Rome, the oppressor of John's day which had ruthlessly devoured the world in its conquests. It is from this fourth Empire, Rome, that the horn arises who speaks boastfully and changes times and laws, who oppresses the saints throughout the time, times and half a time of the New Testament era. It is clear that Revelation 13 and 17 rest solidly on the foundation of Daniel 7.

In Daniel 8 there is another little horn who arises to oppress God's people, but he rises out of the Greek Empire, not out of Rome. He is Antiochus Epiphanes who bitterly persecuted Israel around 168 B.C., the time of the Maccabean revolt. This persecutor, Antiochus, is relevant to our discussion because in Daniel 11 he serves as a type of the Antichrist.

36 The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women. nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.

40 At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. (Daniel 11:36-45)

In Matthew 24 Jesus discusses the fall of Jerusalem which took place in 70 A.D. This event is a type of the Last Judgment, which Jesus also discusses in Matthew 24. In the same way in his 11th chapter, Daniel begins with the arrogant oppressions of Antiochus the King of the North, who is the type, and finishes with the Antichrist, who is anti-type or fulfillment. Especially in verses 37-40 the Reformers and their heirs saw an apt description of the wars and wealth, the sale of church offices, and the enforced celibacy of the Antichrist. Because of the poor rendering in the NIV translation and other translations, verse 37 needs our special attention. Literally it reads, "For the God (or gods) of his fathers he will show no regard and for the desire of women and for every god he will not show regard." By its translation "the one desired by women," the NIV favors the interpretation that this verse refers to Tammuz, a heathen god whose cult especially attracted women (Ezekiel 8:14). The traditional Reformation interpretation was to see this verse as a reference to the scorn of normal sexual relations which underlies enforced celibacy. This interpretation fits whether one understands the phrase "desire of women" as meaning "the desire women have for men" (subjective genitive) or "the desire men have for women" (objective genitive). This interpretation already appears in the oldest extant commentary on Daniel, that of Jerome, who refers to the Antichrist's false pretense of chastity in his discussion of this passage. This passage is used by Chemnitz in his discussion of celibacy and explicitly applied to the papacy. It therefore is clear that this interpretation is worthy of serious consideration in spite of the remarks of commentators like Robert Anderson who says that the view which sees the Antichrist in Daniel 11 has "minimal appeal beyond the circle of some sects" and is "exegetically witless and religiously worthless."

In this survey we have seen that the evidence identifying the Pope as the Antichrist is overwhelming. But in practical terms for you it really does not matter if the pope teaches his false teachings as the Antichrist or as an antichrist. It would be just as urgent to flee his false teachings in either case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yeah, that's all really amazing, since Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception (it's in the Confessions...thanks for purposefully ignoring that). So, then, how was the immaculate conception a new thing in the 19th century? In fact, Luther had a really great sermon on the immaculate conception. I don't know if it was pre or post reformation, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it was a new idea. It may have been SOLIDIFIED in the 19th Century, but Catholics already believed it. Typically the purpose of this is because something is greatly challenged. So the Church holds eccuminical councils and comes to an absolute agreement. This is what happened with the immaculate conception.

Again, if it was new, why did Luther believe in it, and why is it in the Confessions? Answer me that.

 

Hi tulpje,

Brevity is the language of the wise.

Viva la papa

God bless,

Carson

 

Carlson... aren't youthe guy who keeps posting his college papers?

 

Grant AGAIN you are missing the point. I'm not even sure what the immaculent conception is.

Point #1 The Catholic church is indeed teaching that the only what to heaven is not through Jesus alone and the historical-critical method of interpretation.

Point #2 The points the author makes regarding the passages on the antichrist are absolutely compelling. Especially the one out of revelation. I was astounded!

 

Ah, guess what. I have some great quotes from Luther for you...AND THEY ARE POST REFORMATION:

ON PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. " (Ibid.)

"God says . . . : "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God." (Ibid.)

"God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother . . . She is the true mother of God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone." (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

ON IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

" It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil." (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

ON VENERATION OF MARY

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

"[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

Feel free to use this one against me...I already feel it coming, but no Catholic does what Luther warns of...it is merely anti-Catholics claiming they do so...Catholics, in fact, do merely what Luther ascribes above.

"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

What's this? Notions of Eve and Sarah? Shoulda listened to Carson...

"One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Hello...looks like praying to Christ through Mary is okay with Luther.

MARY AS OUR SPIRITUAL MOTHER

"It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father." (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

"Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother." (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

LUTHER APPROVES OF HAIL MARY

" Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation." (Sermon, March 11, 1523).

" Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary." (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

Wow...is Luther still a Catholic? Will you curse the Hail Mary now?

So...let's see what you have to say now. Either you are misguided in your Lutheran views...the modern Lutheran Church has strayed from what Luther taught (which you claim it has not), or Luther has fallen for one of those lies of the anti-Christ, and is encouraging you to follow with him!

[ March 09, 2002, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: DojoGrant ]

 

So you don't know what it is...you just know you don't believe it! How rational is that? Look at my above post. Luther absolutely agreed with it. Shouldn't you?

#1 You can say that all you want, but that won't make Catholic doctrine bend itself around your finger so that it means what you want it to mean.

#2 Yes, many things are astounding! I think that John Calvin had some incredibly intriguing writing...but that doesn't make it true.

Take a look at Nostradomus (spelling?). How many times have people interpretated his predictions? Heck, people found the 9-11 incedent in his writings. Of course, that same prophesy has been fulfilled countless times over, all attributed to what he said.

The fact is that it is NOT that easy to pin down what Revelation says. It's apocryphal writing; in essence, it's meant to be more difficult to understand. The simple fact that someone is able to formulate something interesting out of it doesn't mean that given time, I couldn't find an equally good arguement in it? When there is no explicit meaning, you can make it say whatever you want it to.

 

We don't worship Mary.... you are full of it. but anyway. like we said earlier. Luther is a man. we can do away with what Luther says. If it is not the teaching s of the Bible out it goes.... thanks for proving our point

I want to talk about what it said in the article I cut and pasted.

 

I have never met anyone so hard headed in all my life... it's not just in revelation. it's in 4 or 5 places in scripture all pointing to rome and the papacy. sad but true. just look at the statue bleading tears. not a miracle?