Dan Selbo's election as NALC Bishop

[peter_speckhard]

“The pope,” like “the President” can refer to a man in an office or to the office itself. The office, as it fulfills Biblical descriptions, is what we’re referring to, not the man, as though the various occupants of that office must be evil unbelievers.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Bohler!
Explain this to me.
Brief statement citation of the Schmalcald Articles: Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist.Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)
LCMS website:The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.
So which is it?

Read this bit again from the statement on the website: "It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart."

It is clear there that the statement is NOT repudiating anything the Confessions say.  So your effort to drive a wedge between the LCMS and the Confessions fails.

[Brian Stoffregen]

“The pope,” like “the President” can refer to a man in an office or to the office itself. The office, as it fulfills Biblical descriptions, is what we’re referring to, not the man, as though the various occupants of that office must be evil unbelievers.

Do the confessions make the distinction about "the Antichrist"? It seems to me that Luther and Melanchthon had particular popes in mind when they referred to the pope as the antichrist.

[Charles Austin]

OK, I get this.
The pope, the man, is not the anti-Christ.
But he works in the office of the anti-Christ.
As what? Secretary? CFO? Number Two?

[Steven Tibbetts]

Why is it important whether NALC Bishop Selbo is in an office with the historic apostolic succession?  Does this make his ordination of new pastors more legal and valid?  Or give the NALC Bishop the right to remove pastors from the clergy roster?  Is this historic apostolic succession of the head of the NALC necessary for the NALC to be Church?  I can image the uproar if LCMS President Harrison had a claim to  historic apostolic succession with the sole right to ordain new LCMS pastors along with the right to remove existing LCMS pastors from the LCMS clergy roster.

None of those things are unique to Apostolic Succession via the historic episcopate. 

Pax, Steven+

[Steven Tibbetts]

“The pope,” like “the President” can refer to a man in an office or to the office itself. The office, as it fulfills Biblical descriptions, is what we’re referring to, not the man, as though the various occupants of that office must be evil unbelievers.

And if the office no longer fulfills those Biblical descriptions of anti-Christ as it was fulfilling in the 16th Century, then we need not "repudiate" a confessional judgement that no longer applies.  Among many other things, the Confessions are a call to repentance and there is evidence that the papacy has repented since the Confessions were proclaimed.  It may not be (in the early 21st century) sufficient repentance, but I don't believe the Lutheran fathers believed that the papacy could never, ever repent of the wickedness that is charged in the Confessions and the arguments, and that by definition the papacy must be anti-Christ until the end of time. 

Pax, Steven+

[James_Gale]

Why is it important whether NALC Bishop Selbo is in an office with the historic apostolic succession?  Does this make his ordination of new pastors more legal and valid?  Or give the NALC Bishop the right to remove pastors from the clergy roster?  Is this historic apostolic succession of the head of the NALC necessary for the NALC to be Church?  I can image the uproar if LCMS President Harrison had a claim to  historic apostolic succession with the sole right to ordain new LCMS pastors along with the right to remove existing LCMS pastors from the LCMS clergy roster.

None of those things are unique to Apostolic Succession via the historic episcopate. 

Pax, Steven+

Nor are they necessary to it.

[evangelical catholic]

https://thenalc.org/2019/08/09/california-pastor-elected-bishop-of-the-north-american-lutheran-church/

[Charles Austin]

Steven writes:
And if the office no longer fulfills those Biblical descriptions of anti-Christ as it was fulfilling in the 16th Century, then we need not "repudiate" a confessional judgement that no longer applies.
I comment:
Agreed, Steven, that the confessions need to be read in their historical context, And when that context is no longer our context, the specificity of the confessions On some things I need not be considered as rigid and prescriptive.

[John_Hannah]

Steven writes:
And if the office no longer fulfills those Biblical descriptions of anti-Christ as it was fulfilling in the 16th Century, then we need not "repudiate" a confessional judgement that no longer applies.
I comment:
Agreed, Steven, that the confessions need to be read in their historical context, And when that context is no longer our context, the specificity of the confessions On some things I need not be considered as rigid and prescriptive.

I haven't seen any of the so called "confessionalists" advocating allegiance to Charles the V, but I may have missed it. The "anti-christ" passages are obviously historical judgements that we are not bound by.   

Peace, JOHN

[Steven W Bohler]

Steven writes:
And if the office no longer fulfills those Biblical descriptions of anti-Christ as it was fulfilling in the 16th Century, then we need not "repudiate" a confessional judgement that no longer applies.
I comment:
Agreed, Steven, that the confessions need to be read in their historical context, And when that context is no longer our context, the specificity of the confessions On some things I need not be considered as rigid and prescriptive.

I haven't seen any of the so called "confessionalists" advocating allegiance to Charles the V, but I may have missed it. The "anti-christ" passages are obviously historical judgements that we are not bound by.   

Peace, JOHN

We are indeed bound to those judgments as long as the papacy teaches the same errors. 

[Terry W Culler]

As St John tells us there are and have been many "anti-Christs".  These are the ones who teach falsehood so bad that it destroys the Gospel and leads to heresy, such as semi-Pelagianism with respect to justification, a disproportionate honoring of an office such as the papacy, etc.  Rome has not repented of the errors of Trent and shows no interest in doing so.

[Charles Austin]

But Rome allows the preaching of justification in Lutheran terms.

[Steven W Bohler]

But Rome allows the preaching of justification in Lutheran terms.

And Rome (Council of Trent) formally anathematizes those who do.

[mj4]

But Rome allows the preaching of justification in Lutheran terms.

And Rome (Council of Trent) formally anathematizes those who do.

The condemnations of Trent have been removed do not apply to the Lutheran teaching presented in JDDJ:

...the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Declaration%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Justification.pdf