Here in Louisiana, we prefer red beans and rice. Cute use of legumal mockery, but not very clever, I’m afraid. Unlike Mr. Smoketoomuch from the Monty Python sketch, I’ve heard all the jokes before.

It’s too bad that William Scott Ray didn’t just *ask* me his rhetorical “question.” I mean, it isn’t too hard to find someone’s e-mail address on the internet these days. But as our Lord demonstrated, not all “questions” are truly questions. Some “questions” are thinly veiled attacks on people’s reputations. But to answer William’s “question,” yes, I have read it. And no, there is no significant shift in RC doctrine, though it is equally wrong to say that no shift whatsoever has taken place. Certainly nowhere near enough to declare agreement on the issue. I would not have signed it. I hope that answers his “question.”

When our confessions use the term “the pope” – they do mean in an institutional way – not individual popes. Otherwise, the entire issue became moot when that particular pontiff died. No, the confessions, in calling *the pope* antichrist mean this pope *and his successors,* no? That is why I say “papacy” as an institution.

As far as the Brief Statement goes, even the LCMS had to give up the idea that it is binding. No synod has the authority to bind consciences beyond the Scriptures and the confessions, even as no synod can rightfully define dogma either by bureaucracy or by voting – as that kind of thing really reeks of antichrist. If one can’t make one’s case from the Bible (God’s inerrant Word) and the Confessions (which we all agree is a correct exposition of the same), that becomes telling. If one has to resort to decrees from popes, councils, or synods, bylaws, and LCMS doctrinal statements (which have at times contradicted one another), it proves the weakness of one’s case.

Finally, a laundry list of false doctrines do not define antichrist. If this is the case, we should just come right out and say that every Christian who is not a conservative, confessional Lutheran in fellowship with the LCMS is antichrist. Nowhere do our confessions define, say, the Reformed as antichrist.

Our confessions list very specific marks of the pope’s status as antichrist. Our difficulty today lies in the fact that some of the specific complaints in our confessions are no longer germane – as I pointed out in my article.

Is the papacy (or the pope, if you prefer) still antichrist? I honestly don’t know, and I don’t know if we have sufficient data from Scripture and the Confessions to be as sure today. Does the Roman Church still teach false doctrine – especially regarding justification? Absolutely! Having said that, Luther and Lutheran doctrine have made some inroads into the Roman Church, and we should thank God for that. Should we be in communion with Rome? Absolutely not. Can antichrist exist in church bureaucracies outside of Rome? I believe so. And I believe we’re very foolish to think we are outside of antichrist’s reach just because the Bishop of Rome cannot bully us. I think we play into the devil’s hands by wrapping antichrist up in a convenient and self-contained package outside of our own church’s bureaucracy.

I hope this clears my position up in a way that goes beyond mocking my name.

This is, as you say, a matter of different “gospels.” They are like Luther’s drunken sot who brandished the indulgence he’d purchased. He thought that document gave him the “freedom” to carouse as much as he pleased. Likewise, these people to whom we are unevenly yoked, brandish the “gospel” like an indulgence which gives them the “freedom” to pray with pagans, commune Masons, commit atrocities in their chancels, etc.

If the “gospel” is good only for circumvention of the Law, then it is a Christ-less gospel.

I can’t help but think continually of Hebrews 5:2 “that the Lord is able mercifully to have compassion with the ignorant and those that wander from (Jesus) the way” but yet I can’t help but feeling like a Moses (Numbers 11:12) or Zechariah (Ch.11).

God as Acts 13:18 says is able to as He did with Israel for 40 years not only able to put up with Israel’s frowardness but also feed them as a nurse feedeth her child .

I hate circuses but this is exactly what they have created by making a mockery out of our doctrines and displayed it in their practices and speakers. They likewise have blown their own breath into God’s Word and with their own hands turned and twisted those words into a stupid, cheesy, puffed up creation only to invite a new clown every so often and have him run around and try to pass it off as the Word of God.

2. Eligibility to participate in the various insurance and other worker benefits options offered by LCMS Concordia Plan Services

I’m for retaining the ye’s, but dance I hear is you=Gospel,
ye=Law.

It’s a shame that “you”/”your” have swallowed up so many other pronouns that they comprise our entire second person vocabulary. Compare Exodus 4:15 or Luke 22:31-32 between the KJV and the NIV for some examples of meaning being lost.

But I’m not following what you’re saying about “ye” and “you” here. Isn’t “ye” the nominative, and “you” the objective? Like “I” and “me”, “we” and “us”, “thou” and “thee”, etc?

Nominative: “Drink ye all of it”, “as oft as ye drink it”

Objective: “for you”, “with you”

I have always been curious whether “drink ye all of it” means “ye all drink of it” or “ye drink all of it”. I suppose it’s the first one. Or maybe both, since it’s ambiguous, although I’m not sure that it’s ambiguous in the Greek.

You continue your unjustified accusations. Here’s
a few points you ought to consider:

1. It’s “Dr. Goddard” to you. Extend the same courtesy
to me that you I extended to you.

2. The words “inserted” are in square brackets which
the entire English-speaking world understands to be
editorial comments. Only you think he’s asserting that
the TLSB contained those words. Further, even given
your misunderstanding, they don’t justify your point.

3. It’s not an interpretation of the the TLSB, but
only a footnote. And it not even an interpretation, but
only the observation that the footnote says something
different from the one in the Condordia NIV. And
I sure don’t know how you construe his comments as
a “rant”. I guess it’s your “misinterpretation” of his
comments.

4. It’s your post which was irresponsible. You accuse
Pastor Harris of being ingenuous, but fail to supply the
the words he left out that would support your assertion.
Now you’ve re-posted, which gave you the chance to
supply those missing words. Where are they? If you
can’t supply them, you owe Pastor Harris an apology.

5. Speaking of apologies, you say “I’m sorry you…”
Apologies start with “I’m sorry I…” Make sure you
use that form when you contact Pastor Harris.

6. I overstated nothing. You’ve erred. I called you
on it. Either man up and apologize or go away. I
remind you that you’ve yet to supply the missing words
which you say makes Pastor Harris’ comments ingenuous.

7. Yours is the poor example: Tossing off unsupported
accusations and then posturing like an also-ran
alderman. This insult also needs to be answered.
Condescension is also a sin.

Bart Goddard.

He inserted words in TLSB notes:

Some [namely the LCMS] have

He misinterprets TLSB and uses it to engage in a rant, not a responsible blog post.

I’m sorry you appear to be following his poor examples and indulging in overstatement as well.