13 Dec 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNever heard of it. I's not a part of my lutheran tradition anyway.
FWIW:
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&contentID=4441&collectionID=795&shortcutID=5297
But I've heard that the pope eat barbecuded stillborn infants occationally. But that is not true either, according to my opinion.
13 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf you haven't heard of it, it mustn't be true 🙂
Never heard of it. I's not a part of my lutheran tradition anyway.
But I've heard that the pope eat barbecuded stillborn infants occationally. But that is not true either, according to my opinion.
From Wiki:
"The Smalcald Articles or Schmalkald Articles (German: Schmalkaldische Artikel) are a summary of Lutheran doctrine, written by Martin Luther in 1537 for a meeting of the Schmalkaldic League in preparation for an intended ecumenical Council of the Church."
The Smalcald Articles:
http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php
From Article IV:
"10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God."
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHe was asking "Do Lutherans really think...", and I answered his question: "Never heard of it, and I am brought up as a lutheran." That means that there are lutherans that doesn't heard of it (namely me, and I'm not alone), and therefore doesn't think that.
If you haven't heard of it, it mustn't be true 🙂
From Wiki:
"The Smalcald Articles or Schmalkald Articles (German: Schmalkaldische Artikel) are a summary of Lutheran doctrine, written by Martin Luther in 1537 for a meeting of the Schmalkaldic League in preparation for an intended ecumenical Council of the Church."
The Smalcald Articles:
http:// ...[text shortened]... his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God."
But if you ask what I believe - there is no antichrist at all, so the pope cannot be antichrist. He cannot even be as sacred and godlike as catolics imply. He is a ordinary human, as you and me. Why make him a supernatural? He cannot be neither anti-christ, nor pro-christ.
And this is my opinion.
What's yours?
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasDon't really have an opinion. I took your response to my first post to mean that you didn't believe that there were Lutherans who believed that the Pope is the Antichrist.
He was asking "Do Lutherans really think...", and I answered his question: "Never heard of it, and I am brought up as a lutheran." That means that there are lutherans that doesn't heard of it (namely me, and I'm not alone), and therefore doesn't think that.
But if you ask what I believe - there is no antichrist at all, so the pope cannot be antichrist. ...[text shortened]... cannot be neither anti-christ, nor pro-christ.
And this is my opinion.
What's yours?
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo, only that is not a fundamental dogma among lutherans, nothing more.
Don't really have an opinion. I took your response to my first post to mean that you didn't believe that there were Lutherans who believed that the Pope is the Antichrist.
Can you think up an opinion, then be sure that someone has it as his.
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasEvidently it is fundamental dogma amongst some Lutheran groups.
No, only that is not a fundamental dogma among lutherans, nothing more.
Can you think up an opinion, then be sure that someone has it as his.
Sorry, but I have no idea what your second sentence means.
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSorry, my last sentence means somethings like - "There are opinions of all kind."
Evidently it is fundamental dogma amongst some Lutheran groups.
Sorry, but I have no idea what your second sentence means.
Therefore there are lutherans who believe in proposterous things, as there are catolics that believe in proposterous things. Believing that the pope is anti-christ is one, believing that Luther is anti-christ is another one.
14 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt's not as if these Lutheran groups just pulled their opinion out of thin air. Martin Luther explicitly expressed this view. Luther said, "This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God." In this light, your point seems to make little sense. You might want to consider whether or not those who disagree with Luther's assessment are truly "Lutheran" 🙂
Sorry, my last sentence means somethings like - "There are opinions of all kind."
Therefore there are lutherans who believe in proposterous things, as there are catolics that believe in proposterous things. Believing that the pope is anti-christ is one, believing that Luther is anti-christ is another one.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThanks for answering the question 🙂.
He was asking "Do Lutherans really think...", and I answered his question: "Never heard of it, and I am brought up as a lutheran." That means that there are lutherans that doesn't heard of it (namely me, and I'm not alone), and therefore doesn't think that.
But if you ask what I believe - there is no antichrist at all, so the pope cannot be antichrist. ...[text shortened]... cannot be neither anti-christ, nor pro-christ.
And this is my opinion.
What's yours?
The reason I asked is that I of course agree that the pope is an ordinary human, and furthermore that while historical popes have been responsible for some nasty things, it seems to me like the people who write religious doctrine could have had a lot more fun with the Antichrist than simply demonising an office which has so far failed to bring about the end of the world or anything close.
14 Dec 08
Ahhh-hem. As a Lutheran, I am planning to ask my pastor shortly about this question. I read the passage in the Book of Concord, and I understand it to (possibly) be referring to: A) the pope at the time the book was written or,B) as the previous poster states, speakung to the office in general, not one specific pope,