Is The Papacy Still The Very Antichrist?

[Scott5]

I remain vigilant to false teaching whatever its source.

And charitable in your vigilance I hope, realizing that sometimes folks are pointing to the same thing though utilizing different words, metaphors, examples, etc.

[Lutheran_Lay_Leader]

Please help me to understand something. Many people in this thread are saying that because the Roman Catholic Church differs in their interpretation of Scripture in a small degree from us Lutherans, that makes the Pope the anti-Christ. So what does that make the followers of Mohammed? If you're going to go looking for an anti-Christ, wouldn't it be someone who started a death cult whose fundamental teaching is nothing but (Sharia) Law?

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Erdner, you will have to read through the concept of the anti-Christ as spoken of in the Lutheran Confessions to grasp what is going on here. "The" anti-Christ is not just some one or some thing that is anti-Christ.
And the confessions definitely speak of the Pope as the anti-Christ.

[Karl Hess]

And they know you believe their beloved leader is the Anti-Christ? You must tell them, of course, because their souls are in peril. And you must be fervent, persistent and dedicated in winning them away from him.
Tell me how that works these days.

I don't know.  That's not really how I do it.  Kind of like I don't tell people as they first walk into the door of the church that they need to accept that the bible is inerrant and the world was created in 6 days.  Usually, most Lutherans begin with Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Augustana, and that's how I tend to do it too.  As to how it works--it works as God wants it to work.

[Scott5]

Mr. Erdner, you will have to read through the concept of the anti-Christ as spoken of in the Lutheran Confessions to grasp what is going on here. "The" anti-Christ is not just some one or some thing that is anti-Christ.
And the confessions definitely speak of the Pope as the anti-Christ.

Charles is right.  You can't understand this conversation unless you know what the Confessions have to say on the issue (or Luther in multiple locations throughout his corpus).  It is quite complex in that it involves not only understanding the plain sense of the Confessional statements, but their historical context, their goals / intentions by propounding the label, etc.

[pr dtp]

Mr. Erdner, you will have to read through the concept of the anti-Christ as spoken of in the Lutheran Confessions to grasp what is going on here. "The" anti-Christ is not just some one or some thing that is anti-Christ.
And the confessions definitely speak of the Pope as the anti-Christ.

Charles is right.  You can't understand this conversation unless you know what the Confessions have to say on the issue (or Luther in multiple locations throughout his corpus).  It is quite complex in that it involves not only understanding the plain sense of the Confessional statements, but their historical context, their goals / intentions by propounding the label, etc.

Not only that, but as we confess the confessions are based on the correct exposition of scripture.

A decent review there helps as well.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Mr. Erdner, you will have to read through the concept of the anti-Christ as spoken of in the Lutheran Confessions to grasp what is going on here. "The" anti-Christ is not just some one or some thing that is anti-Christ.
And the confessions definitely speak of the Pope as the anti-Christ.

Charles is right.  You can't understand this conversation unless you know what the Confessions have to say on the issue (or Luther in multiple locations throughout his corpus).  It is quite complex in that it involves not only understanding the plain sense of the Confessional statements, but their historical context, their goals / intentions by propounding the label, etc.

Not only that, but as we confess the confessions are based on the correct exposition of scripture.

A decent review there helps as well.

And many of us believe that the Confessions are historically conditioned, just like scriptures. Not everything in them applies directly to the 21st century.

[Scott5]

I must confess I struggle with this. It is certainly true that we should work to discern the meaning of what someone is writing or saying rather than worrying over words and especially twisting them.

An interesting tidbit of information is that in their colloquies with the Roman Catholics, the Lutheran Reformers adjusted the language they used from that in the AC (which was the basis for their discussions, and interestingly enough, they normally used the Variata) in order to arrive at an agreement with their Roman interlocutors.  An example is at Regensburg in 1541 where they even agreed to a re-written statement of the article on justification (though this reformulation was later rejected by the political leaders of both sides).

However, it must be realized that in this sinful world, words can be used to obfuscate as well as to clarify. Furthermore, words mean things, and when that meaning is contextualized away, we end up left with little other than word salad.

Context is indeed critically important in understanding Scripture rightly. However, I believe the more that we move from an attitude in which Scripture is understood to have an objective meaning after studied consideration to a subjective attitude that "this is what Scripture means to me", the more we invite trouble.

Right.  That is why I've had multiple discussions on this forum trying to get at how both the "objective" meaning of words can be understood while maintaining that it's actually people who do the interpreting (the so-called "subjective" side) along with all that their historical situatedness means.  Putting the two poles at odds with each other -- i.e. words as decontextualized signifiers pointing to eternally static and characterizable realities vs. words as meaning whatever seems appropriate to me at the time -- is where the problem lies.  Such an approach inevitably distorts not only what actually occurs in interpretation but also each pole itself.

[Team Hesse]

Right.  That is why I've had multiple discussions on this forum trying to get at how both the "objective" meaning of words can be understood while maintaining that it's actually people who do the interpreting (the so-called "subjective" side) along with all that their historical situatedness means.  Putting the two poles at odds with each other -- i.e. words as decontextualized signifiers pointing to eternally static and characterizable realities vs. words as meaning whatever seems appropriate to me at the time -- is where the problem lies.  Such an approach inevitably distorts not only what actually occurs in interpretation but also each pole itself.

Count me as one person who hopes and prays you continue to make this point as often and in as many venues as possible.  It takes effort to understand what you're driving at, but much wisdom is found therein.
Lou

[Michael_Rothaar]

Please help me to understand something. Many people in this thread are saying that because the Roman Catholic Church differs in their interpretation of Scripture in a small degree from us Lutherans, that makes the Pope the anti-Christ. So what does that make the followers of Mohammed? If you're going to go looking for an anti-Christ, wouldn't it be someone who started a death cult whose fundamental teaching is nothing but (Sharia) Law?

Lots of comments followed this one, focusing on the significance (i.e. sign value) of the confessional use of the term.

But if there's any value in exploring the meaning of I John 2:22 (and I'm not arguing that there is), surely Mr. Erdner brings up a point worth discussing.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Right.  That is why I've had multiple discussions on this forum trying to get at how both the "objective" meaning of words can be understood while maintaining that it's actually people who do the interpreting (the so-called "subjective" side) along with all that their historical situatedness means.

What isn't so clear in the above statement is that words often have multiple "objective" meanings. Sometimes the range of meanings can be quite broad, e.g., the word "bar". Sometimes there can just be nuances of differences. Sometimes "objective" meanings take on metaphorical senses within some contexts, e.g., "sleep with" -- does it really mean sleep or sex?

Putting the two poles at odds with each other -- i.e. words as decontextualized signifiers pointing to eternally static and characterizable realities vs. words as meaning whatever seems appropriate to me at the time -- is where the problem lies.  Such an approach inevitably distorts not only what actually occurs in interpretation but also each pole itself.

Words do not mean whatever we want them to mean, but they create a range of meanings and we need to select from that range what it may mean within the particular context. Often, even in more literal English translations of the NT, one Greek word may be translated in different ways because the context changes the meaning.

[pearson]

What isn't so clear in the above statement is that words often have multiple "objective" meanings. Sometimes the range of meanings can be quite broad, e.g., the word "bar". Sometimes there can just be nuances of differences. Sometimes "objective" meanings take on metaphorical senses within some contexts, e.g., "sleep with" -- does it really mean sleep or sex?

Words do not mean whatever we want them to mean, but they create a range of meanings and we need to select from that range what it may mean within the particular context. Often, even in more literal English translations of the NT, one Greek word may be translated in different ways because the context changes the meaning.

All this is quite true.  But it might be misleading, Brian, to use phrases like "we need to select. . .", if such phrases suggest that when multiple meanings for a term occur, then we get to choose which meaning is "right for us."  All of us live within our linguistic environments, and the appropriate "meaning" of a term typically recommends itself in specific situations.  We don't choose our meanings; the linguistic context we inhabit does that job for us.  When multiple meanings of a word exist, the linguistic context indicates to us the meaning that is most suitable to the immediate event.   The same is true, I think, of reading the biblical text (as you suggest): the more we know of the linguistic context of a particular writer, the more likely we are to discover a suitable meaning within a text.

But I confess this stuff ain't easy for me to figure out.  After several years of studying language and metaphor with the likes of Mark Johnson and George Lakoff, I now have no idea what "meaning" actually means (and neither do they).  So much for the benefits of a higher education.  (Yes, yes, Scott, I know:  just read Peirce and all will become clear).

Tom Pearson
 

[Brian Stoffregen]

All this is quite true.  But it might be misleading, Brian, to use phrases like "we need to select. . .", if such phrases suggest that when multiple meanings for a term occur, then we get to choose which meaning is "right for us."

The word "need" is unnecessary. We select a meaning that we believe fits the contexts; and there are at least two contexts: that of the text and that of the reader/hearer.

For instance, having grown up in Portland, Oregon, the few times we had snow, it was nearly always the wet, heavy snow. That's all I knew about "snow" until I lived in the midwest and discovered a different type of snow that could be "shoveled" with a broom. So, in my earlier life, I had essentially only one "context" for understanding "snow" in "The snow fell on a cold, winter night." After life in the midwest, I had another, personal context for understanding a different nuance concerning the word "snow".

All of us live within our linguistic environments, and the appropriate "meaning" of a term typically recommends itself in specific situations.  We don't choose our meanings; the linguistic context we inhabit does that job for us.  When multiple meanings of a word exist, the linguistic context indicates to us the meaning that is most suitable to the immediate event.   The same is true, I think, of reading the biblical text (as you suggest): the more we know of the linguistic context of a particular writer, the more likely we are to discover a suitable meaning within a text.

The linguistic context is certainly a necessary component of defining a word, but one's personal context also comes into play.

[Scott5]

(Yes, yes, Scott, I know:  just read Peirce and all will become clear).

Not at all.  Read Peirce through Ochs.  Ricoeur makes some good steps, too, in his discussion of interpretive movements embodied in a dialogic relation between understanding and explication, and Gadamer lays down a helpful ontology even as Habermas points to a way of fixing logics.  But Ochs helps to draw these guys (and lots of other folks like the Rabbis, the Church Fathers, and oh yeah, the Scriptures) together.

http://www.amazon.com/Peirce-Pragmatism-Logic-Scripture-Peter/dp/0521570417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223595388&sr=8-1

Oh, and if becomes "clear," then you've read them wrong.  Oddly enough, what you're after is vague clarity where pesky things like the laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction become a bit oogly.  Clear?

[pearson]

Oh, and if becomes "clear," then you've read them wrong.  Oddly enough, what you're after is vague clarity where pesky things like the laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction become a bit oogly.  Clear?

Oh.  Sure.  "Oogly."  Got it.

Tom Pearson