Will I be able to join the LCMS?

[jinc1019]

I am considering the LC-MS very closely and have been for quite some time. I am reading about Lutheranism in depth now but have a few major reservations, two of which are mentioned below. In contrast to what the LCMS has officially presented, I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that the creation narrative should not be taken to mean 6 24-hour days and I do not believe the office of the papacy in Rome is the Anti-Christ of the Book of Revelation.

Given these two beliefs, is it possible to be LC-MS in good faith? Thanks for your time and efforts!

 

[DaRev]

I am considering the LC-MS very closely and have been for quite some time. I am reading about Lutheranism in depth now but have a few major reservations, two of which are mentioned below. In contrast to what the LCMS has officially presented, I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that the creation narrative should not be taken to mean 6 24-hour days and I do not believe the office of the papacy in Rome is the Anti-Christ of the Book of Revelation.

Given these two beliefs, is it possible to be LC-MS in good faith? Thanks for your time and efforts!

You could certainly join an LCMS congregation after the required classes, but it would be very wise to get involved in a Bible study to understand what the Scriptures specifically teach about these issues. The concern would be if you are having trouble accepting these Biblical teachings, what other Biblical teachings are you also possibly rejecting?

 

[jinc1019]

You could certainly join an LCMS congregation after the required classes, but it would be very wise to get involved in a Bible study to understand what the Scriptures specifically teach about these issues. The concern would be if you are having trouble accepting these Biblical teachings, what other Biblical teachings are you also possibly rejecting?

I appreciate the response.

Without getting into the specifics for why I believe what I do...
What if I never changed my views on these two issues? Do you really mean to tell me that every LCMS pastor teaches that creation was in 6 24-hour days and that the pope is the Anti-Christ?

Further, especially on the issue of the Anti-Christ...This is not an issue of "what the scriptures teach," as you claimed...because nowhere does it claim any such thing. By definition, any claim is purely speculative (even if it seems completely likely to you). Therefore, it is entirely possible that Luther was wrong about it.

 

[DaRev]

I appreciate the response.

Without getting into the specifics for why I believe what I do...
What if I never changed my views on these two issues? Do you really mean to tell me that every LCMS pastor teaches that creation was in 6 24-hour days and that the pope is the Anti-Christ?

He most certainly should since that is what the Scriptures teach.

Further, especially on the issue of the Anti-Christ...This is not an issue of "what the scriptures teach," as you claimed...because nowhere does it claim any such thing. By definition, any claim is purely speculative (even if it seems completely likely to you). Therefore, it is entirely possible that Luther was wrong about it.

The description of the anti-Christ in Scripture fits the office of the papacy to a 'T'. Read the Treatise in the Book of Concord.

 

[Luther073082]

I appreciate the response.

Without getting into the specifics for why I believe what I do...
What if I never changed my views on these two issues? Do you really mean to tell me that every LCMS pastor teaches that creation was in 6 24-hour days and that the pope is the Anti-Christ?

Further, especially on the issue of the Anti-Christ...This is not an issue of "what the scriptures teach," as you claimed...because nowhere does it claim any such thing. By definition, any claim is purely speculative (even if it seems completely likely to you). Therefore, it is entirely possible that Luther was wrong about it.

For the record since few understand this intitally, one should take care to understand the office of the papacy being the anti-Christ and the pope himself being so.

We don't make any claim that Pope Francis himself is the Anti-Christ, in fact there is good reason to believe the man is a Christian. However the office he holds has traditionally stifled the gospel through the errors of the papacy.

 

[jinc1019]

For the record since few understand this intitally, one should take care to understand the office of the papacy being the anti-Christ and the pope himself being so.

We don't make any claim that Pope Francis himself is the Anti-Christ, in fact there is good reason to believe the man is a Christian. However the office he holds has traditionally stifled the gospel through the errors of the papacy.

Thank you for pointing this out because I know many get confused about it, but yes, I am aware that this is the position. However, even if the Pope does stifle the Gospel as you claim he does, it doesn't make him THE Anti-Christ. This is just speculation. Even if every "sign" points to the papal office, it is still just speculation and nothing more. That is an undeniable fact and it seems foolish to me that anyone should feel compelled to believe it when the claim itself is merely speculative and made by infallible human beings.

 

[jinc1019]

He most certainly should since that is what the Scriptures teach.



The description of the anti-Christ in Scripture fits the office of the papacy to a 'T'. Read the Treatise in the Book of Concord.

I have read the treatise in the Book of Concord and again, it is all just speculation. You can't prove it and even if the signs point in that direction (and I am not saying they do or don't), it is undeniable that: 1. It is a speculative claim, not a factual claim. 2. The Biblical assertions do not specifically point to the Pope, only to certain descriptions which you interpret to be the pope. 3. Any interpretations made without a clear and certain basis in scripture is possibly true but not necessarily true.

 

[Luther073082]

Thank you for pointing this out because I know many get confused about it, but yes, I am aware that this is the position. However, even if the Pope does stifle the Gospel as you claim he does, it doesn't make him THE Anti-Christ. This is just speculation. Even if every "sign" points to the papal office, it is still just speculation and nothing more. That is an undeniable fact and it seems foolish to me that anyone should feel compelled to believe it when the claim itself is merely speculative and made by infallible human beings.

Is it speculation if it fits all the markers?

I suppose you could say it's speculation. . . but it's speculation in the same way that saying that the person who's fingerprints are on the knife that is stuck in a dead person's chest stabbed and killed that person is speculation.

 

[jinc1019]

Is it speculation if it fits all the markers?

I suppose you could say it's speculation. . . but it's speculation in the same way that saying that the person who's fingerprints are on the knife that is stuck in a dead person's chest stabbed and killed that person is speculation.

I don't think the analogy holds at all personally. A person whose finger prints appear on the knife have a specific and unique identifier which belongs basically ONLY to them indicating they may be the culprit. The descriptions of the anti-Christ do not offer nearly that kind of evidence. It is impossible, in my view, to argue with certainty that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Is it possible a future Pope could fit that bill? Of course it is...but there is scant evidence to prove otherwise.

This is not the point of this thread, however. The point of the thread is to determine whether my position would be acceptable or not in the LCMS. Regardless of whether they think it is right or wrong...is it acceptable to have a dissenting view or is absolute conformity required?

 

[Luther073082]

I don't think the analogy holds at all personally. A person whose finger prints appear on the knife have a specific and unique identifier which belongs basically ONLY to them indicating they may be the culprit. The descriptions of the anti-Christ do not offer nearly that kind of evidence. It is impossible, in my view, to argue with certainty that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Is it possible a future Pope could fit that bill? Of course it is...but there is scant evidence to prove otherwise.

I don't think you understand it quite. There is more then one anti-Christ and the office of the papacy itself fits the bill, not just particular popes.

This is not the point of this thread, however. The point of the thread is to determine whether my position would be acceptable or not in the LCMS. Regardless of whether they think it is right or wrong...is it acceptable to have a dissenting view or is absolute conformity required?

I would think it would have to be a question of how much dissenting is in your view.

If you keep that to yourself, I should not think it a major deal that would prevent you from being a member of a confessional Lutheran church.

However it becomes a problem if you start trying to teach others this and spread dissent within the church and start creating divisions within the church.

 

[DaRev]

I don't think the analogy holds at all personally. A person whose finger prints appear on the knife have a specific and unique identifier which belongs basically ONLY to them indicating they may be the culprit. The descriptions of the anti-Christ do not offer nearly that kind of evidence. It is impossible, in my view, to argue with certainty that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Is it possible a future Pope could fit that bill? Of course it is...but there is scant evidence to prove otherwise.

This is not the point of this thread, however. The point of the thread is to determine whether my position would be acceptable or not in the LCMS. Regardless of whether they think it is right or wrong...is it acceptable to have a dissenting view or is absolute conformity required?

I don't think you understand it quite. There is more then one anti-Christ and the office of the papacy itself fits the bill, not just particular popes.

I would think it would have to be a question of how much dissenting is in your view.

If you keep that to yourself, I should not think it a major deal that would prevent you from being a member of a confessional Lutheran church.

However it becomes a problem if you start trying to teach others this and spread dissent within the church and start creating divisions within the church.

Willingness to study the issue from the Confessional perspective is a good thing. While the Treatise is not a text used in catechesis in most cases, the Confessional view of the Church is of utmost importance. In matters that you struggle with, it is better to have an open mind and be willing to study the Confessional perspective rather than be staunchly opposed to it. Struggling with an issue and desiring to learn more is certainly not a sin and would not prevent one from entering into membership in a congregation. In fact, such an attitude would be embraced. The real "deal breakers" would be the teachings of the six chief parts of the catechism (learned from the Small and Large Catechisms) which reflect the base teachings of the Christian faith.

 

[jinc1019]

I don't think you understand it quite. There is more then one anti-Christ and the office of the papacy itself fits the bill, not just particular popes.



I would think it would have to be a question of how much dissenting is in your view.

If you keep that to yourself, I should not think it a major deal that would prevent you from being a member of a confessional Lutheran church.

However it becomes a problem if you start trying to teach others this and spread dissent within the church and start creating divisions within the church.

I certainly don't plan on starting any divisions or destroying any church body! However, I would not feel comfortable lying either.

Perhaps you are right that I don't fully understand the issue. However, I think I do...I understand that there are many anti-Christs...but I also understand that Luther taught that there was one "THE Anti-Christ" and that the Catholic Church's papal office fit that description in his eyes. In my opinion, Luther was wrong. I know that specific individual popes are not, but the office itself supposedly is, even right now with Pope Francis I...Is that correct?

 

[jinc1019]

Willingness to study the issue from the Confessional perspective is a good thing. While the Treatise is not a text used in catechesis in most cases, the Confessional view of the Church is of utmost importance. In matters that you struggle with, it is better to have an open mind and be willing to study the Confessional perspective rather than be staunchly opposed to it. Struggling with an issue and desiring to learn more is certainly not a sin and would not prevent one from entering into membership in a congregation. In fact, such an attitude would be embraced. The real "deal breakers" would be the teachings of the six chief parts of the catechism (learned from the Small and Large Catechisms) which reflect the base teachings of the Christian faith.

I am certainly always willing to study any issue and I am reading a book right now on Lutheran views, I believe it is called The Lutheran Difference, and it describes almost any Christian topic from the confessional perspective. It is very well-written...However, at this point, I must admit that several issues, chiefly the two I mentioned previously, are not ones I believe Luther was correct on. I think the papal office is likely not the Anti-Christ and I am not convinced the Creation narrative was meant to be taken literally (I mean the 6 24-hour day part of it as well as some of the nitty gritty details...The focus of the narrative I accept completely and in its whole)

 

[Tangible]

FWIW, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of LCMS Lutherans in good standing that have the same convictions as you do.

 

[DaRev]

I am certainly always willing to study any issue and I am reading a book right now on Lutheran views, I believe it is called The Lutheran Difference, and it describes almost any Christian topic from the confessional perspective. It is very well-written...However, at this point, I must admit that several issues, chiefly the two I mentioned previously, are not ones I believe Luther was correct on. I think the papal office is likely not the Anti-Christ and I am not convinced the Creation narrative was meant to be taken literally (I mean the 6 24-hour day part of it as well as some of the nitty gritty details...The focus of the narrative I accept completely and in its whole)

Confessional Lutherans hold to the hermeneutic that Scripture interprets Scripture. Context is king when it comes to reading and understanding what the Scriptures teach us. We don't add our reason or opinions or traditions to the Scriptures, rather we derive our doctrines and practices from Scripture. The issue of the anti-Christ description to the office of the papacy is one of application. The description of the anti-Christ in the Biblical texts and the actions of the office of the papacy match. The Treatise explains this further. As far as the Creation account, there is nothing in the context of Scripture as a whole that would suggest that the days of Creation are anything other than six consecutive 24 hour days. The wording in Genesis 1 along with other teachings and passages within Scripture leaves no other interpretation as per the context of the texts. So many other doctrines are based upon the texts in Genesis. If they are explained away, it undermines the very Gospel and places our faith in jeopardy.

In the LCMS (and other Confessional Lutheran church bodies) we don't waiver much at all from what the Biblical texts state.

 

[jinc1019]

FWIW, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of LCMS Lutherans in good standing that have the same convictions as you do.

It matters a great deal actually! Thank you for sharing that.

 

[jinc1019]

Confessional Lutherans hold to the hermeneutic that Scripture interprets Scripture. Context is king when it comes to reading and understanding what the Scriptures teach us. We don't add our reason or opinions or traditions to the Scriptures, rather we derive our doctrines and practices from Scripture. The issue of the anti-Christ description to the office of the papacy is one of application. The description of the anti-Christ in the Biblical texts and the actions of the office of the papacy match. The Treatise explains this further. As far as the Creation account, there is nothing in the context of Scripture as a whole that would suggest that the days of Creation are anything other than six consecutive 24 hour days. The wording in Genesis 1 along with other teachings and passages within Scripture leaves no other interpretation as per the context of the texts. So many other doctrines are based upon the texts in Genesis. If they are explained away, it undermines the very Gospel and places our faith in jeopardy.

In the LCMS (and other Confessional Lutheran church bodies) we don't waiver much at all from what the Biblical texts state.

It seems illogical to me to say that only scripture can interpret scripture when reason and historical context are used all the time to understand scripture, which is why women are still told to keep absolutely silent in church, keep their heads covered, or any other number of things. You can't say that reason outside of scripture is not used when those examples clearly prove it is. Further, I am not denying the creation story, only the interpretation of those events by the LCMS.

 

[cerette]

It seems illogical to me to say that only scripture can interpret scripture when reason and historical context are used all the time to understand scripture, which is why women are still told to keep absolutely silent in church, keep their heads covered, or any other number of things. You can't say that reason outside of scripture is not used when those examples clearly prove it is. Further, I am not denying the creation story, only the interpretation of those events by the LCMS.

Who teaches that? Or did you accidently leave out "are not"??

 

[DaRev]

It seems illogical to me to say that only scripture can interpret scripture when reason and historical context are used all the time to understand scripture, which is why women are still told to keep absolutely silent in church, keep their heads covered, or any other number of things. You can't say that reason outside of scripture is not used when those examples clearly prove it is.

As I said before, context is king.
In the Lutheran Church, reason and historical context are not part of the hermeneutic. Scripture interprets Scripture. That's precisely why the Lutheran Church does not teach that women must keep their heads covered and any number of other things. Some parts of Scripture are to be read and applied literally, some parts are metaphorical. How do we know which is which? Context!! Context is king.

The integrity of the Scriptures is of utmost importance in the LCMS.

Further, I am not denying the creation story, only the interpretation of those events by the LCMS.

It's not the LCMS' interpretation. Scripture interprets Scripture, and since Scripture is God's inspired word and without error, it is God's interpretation.

 

[jinc1019]

Who teaches that? Or did you accidently leave out "are not"??

Correct, I meant "are not"