Tuesday, October 17, 2006

According To Michele Bachmann All Muslims Are Going To Hell & The Pope Is The Antichrist

So I had a little extra free time at work today and decided to take a look at Michele Bachmann’s website and discovered in her biography section that she is a member of Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church of Stillwater which is associated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. So I decided to check out the WELS website and discovered a fun little tool on there, the Q & A section.

Here are some of the best parts of what the church that Michele Bachmann belongs to believes in:

“From my personal reading I believe Islam (reflecting statements in the Quran and historical developments of a fairly consistent ideology) has never been a tolerant religion and actively seeks peace only if it does so for its own purposes--eventually to dominate the world religiously and culturally.” (link)

“Although Muhammad was an antichrist and Islam is anti-Christian, we do not identify Muhammad with the Antichrist because he does not fit the description in 2 Thessalonains 2:1-2.” (link)

“. . . we accept that the Pope is the Antichrist . . . because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy.” (link)

So there you go, basically according to the church that Michele Bachmann proclaims to be a member of (1) Muslims are trying to dominate the world religiously and culturally, (2) all Muslims are going to hell, (3) Muhammad was an antichrist but he wasn’t THE antichrist, and (4) the coveted spot of THE antichrist is reserved for the Pope.

Oh and her church doesn't believe in any form of evolution (link, sec. 2 #7) either.


Anonymous said...

I can't believe you are describing Michelle Bachman as a true Christian who follows the teaching of the Bible. She probably should adhere to a existentialist idea that Muslims are going to heaven because they say they are, no matter if the Bible contradicts their teaching or not. If she thinks that just because Muslims deny that Christ died for the sin of the world they can't go to heaven, she must be dead wrong. I can't believe someone still adheres to the teaching of the Bible, that's absolutely absurd.

Anonymous said...

How shocking it is that there are some Christian denominations that actually accept the Holy Bible as the inspired Word of God, and let Scripture interpret Scripture!

If only we could all be so peace-loving as the those faithful followers of Islam, whose holy book preaches no word of violence against the unbelievers!

If you read the documents of the Founding Fathers, you will see that, although there is no test for religious office in the constitution, they feared the possibility of a Papist or Mohammaden (their words) holding public office, because their highest allegiance was to a foreign, evil power. Fears arose during Jacksonian America as well of the Papist invasion.

The view that the Pope was THE Antichrist, or man of lawlessness, who sat on the throne of God, was taught by many Protestants until postmodern times. It is comforting to see that there are some church bodies who still hold on to their heritage.

Michelle Bachmann, as a Lutheran, most likely understands the doctrine of the two kingdoms, supported by Luther and Jesus Christ, the Logos, the originator of all Christian doctrine and Savior of the World (if the Bible means what it says). This means that she will not let her faith (which, if Biblical Christianity, preaches love to one's enemy) rule over her constituents.

It should be acknowledged that her position of marriage is that of tradition, and not of a belief that homosexuality is a sin (which the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod teaches, as based on Scripture).

This traditional belive is that marriage is the foundational building block of society and ought to be reserved for a man and a woman, based on mutual agreement and self-sacrificing love, not on lust-love, as Hollywood has purported relationships to be. This, consequently, one man and one woman, is all it takes to start a family and produce future citizens in a stable, loving environment, and, as such, should be protected. If two men were able to produce offspring, or two women, then they should be able to join in this self-sacrificing, life-long union. Again, this is not based on lust-love. If this is not their nature, than they should be satisfied to follow the normal setting for marriage rather than beg for a special status.

I wrote this because it seems that this post is an attack on Michelle Bachmann's political competance, yet the two do not correlate. Minnesota's Lt. Governor Carol Molnau belongs to a church body that shares fellowship with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, yet her integrety as a politician is not compromised. J. A. O. Preus, the 20th governor of the state of Minnesota, belonged to a church body which also claimed fellowship with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, yet did not force his personal faith upon the people, but faithfully fought for property rights and the rights of each person's freedom of religion.

Ilya said...

To anonymous #2: You are right to note that during the 1787 debates over the ratification of the proposed Constitution, there were fears of what was often called "Popery" (including the question of whether the Pope could become president. He could, but the likelihood is extremely low.) This issue still arises whenever Roman Catholics run for office: will they follow the teachings of the Pope, a foreign preacher in Italy?

This is quite different, however, than the case of a church calling the Pope the Anti-Christ. Today, this seems absurd.

Also, Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. If Scripture was self-interpreting, all churches would be out of business. No text interprets itself.

Anonymous said...

The question of calling the Pope THE Antichrist is not absurd if the term is correctly understood. Antichrist is incorrectly understood today as being a world leader possessed by Satan who will lead a war against the faithful (or something along those lines).

The Greek words defining the Antichrist, (ho antichristos), show that the Antichrist makes himself a substitute (Greek 'anti' means 'instead of') of Christ. II Thessalonians 2 reveals that the Antichrist will place himself on the throne of God showing himself to be God. The Pope is considered by Catholics to be the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth, and several doctrines have risen in and out of popularity within the Catholic Church, one of which is papal infallibility.

If you review the development of the Catholic Church, it is clear to see how the Pope has assumed this antichrist role, by becoming the sole interpreter of the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Faith. Reformers such as Martin Luther found that there existed a personal God, whose doctrines were not to be recieved through the Roman hierarchy. However, at this time, the Holy See still claims his role as sole interpreter, which allows him to create new doctrines in which the Gospel preached by and worked through Jesus Christ are polluted or replaced. Many Roman Catholics today still hold Scripture and tradition on an equal level of confessional validity.

As for the question of Scripture interpreting Scripture, how can you be such a postmodernist? When I look at the painting Guernica, I do not look to my neighbor and ask him or her, "What do YOU think it means?" I try to understand the context in which the painting was drawn and any notes Picasso may have written concerning it. Similarly, I would not ask a young person what T.S. Eliot was hinting at in "The Wasteland" and say, "Good and valid point!" Rather, I would contact an Eliot scholar who has studied the poet's personal life and journals.

Scripture interpreting Scripture meanst that the doctrine put forth in one book of the Bible is explained by another book of the Canon. Therefore, verses ought not to be taken out of context, but explained by the surrounding verses. There are so many different interpretations of Scripture because so many churches say that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture, but that human reason must take some part in the exegesis.

--Anonymous #2

Anti-Everything said...

Anonymous #2:
Alright well first let me clear up a few problems I found with your definition of terms as it related to Catholic teaching. First off you state the “Pope is considered by Catholics to be the Vicar (substitute) of Christ on earth”, although you are correct in stating this, defining the term “Vicar” to mean “substitute” is inaccurate, you are defining the term in the wrong context. The term “Vicar” does in certain situations mean substitute, but under the context of the Catholic faith the correct definition of “Vicar” simply means “an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop”. The Catholic definition can be compared to other religions use of the same word, under the context to the Church of England “Vicar” means “a person acting as priest of a parish in place of the rector” and under the context of the Protestant Episcopal Church the term refers to “a member of the clergy whose sole or chief charge is a chapel dependent on the church of a parish”. So before you state that the Pope is considered by Catholics to be a substitute for Christ you must first ensure that you are defining the term correctly, which in my opinion you are not.

Secondly I believe you are confusing the term "infallibility" with the term "impeccability”, which means to be incapable of sin. So the fact that Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible does not guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. The term “infallible” actually only applies to doctrines pronounced by the Catholic Church, and only when some doctrine is called into question. Furthermore it is not only the Pope who is “infallible” but according the Catholic faith ecumenical councils can also infallible.

But let me get to my main point, that being that I am not Catholic, Lutheran or even a Christian so debating the intricacies of either Lutheran or Catholic doctrine doesn’t really interest me.

What I do find interesting is what effect Michele Bachmann’s religious beliefs, if any, will have on the upcoming election. I would be curious to see what voters in say Stearns County, which has one of the largest Catholic populations in the state, would have to say about a candidate who holds the belief that the person who acts as their spiritual guider is considered by Michele Bachmann to be THE antichrist.

xtrachromosomeconservative said...

I should add, though, in normal circumstance my additions amount to precious little and this is no different, that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is not the Alpha and Omega of the Lutheran church. It is part of the Lutheran church. A fundamentalist part of the Lutheran church. Other synods exist that would not be lumped together with the "evangelical" movement but are what most have considered part of the mainline or liberal protestant tradition, such as my synod, the ELCA.

Anti-Everything said...

I understand xtra and if I at all gave the impression that I was lumping all protestant traditions together that was not my intent and I apologize.

Superman Fan said...

Good defense of Catholic beliefs. You may say you're not Catholic but there must be some Catholic education and upbringing in your background. I bet your father is proud of your response.

Randy said...

A very well informed discussion is going on here and I am pleased to add to it. I think it would be generally abhorent to bring up a candidates religious background as a campaign issue. However, since Michelle Bachman has openly injected her religious beliefs and opinions so vigorously into her politics she is fair game on this issue. Although I find it unlikely that God would have much to do with a US Senator, Bachman claims to have been called by him for that office. I guess she won't have much to worry about then, at least in her own mind, being so convicted. I, on the other hand am quite concerned. History is full of sick rulers who, sufering from delusions of grandure, claimed authority from God. I find her to be dogmatic, judgemental, and a moral eletist. Freedom of religious expression is an important American right but when you hold public office you serve all Americans, not just the ones that align with yours in particular.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps M. Bachman was wrong to make such strong statements about God wanting her to run for office. In doing so, she was the one who initially dragged religion into the race, and that wasn't appropriate.

That said, though, was the reporter's question a fair debate question? It was labled a "debate" which, by definition, means that both sides are to discuss /argue a given point. How could Wetterling even have debated the question, since it was so targeted at Bachman? She couldn't have; it was an interview question, but not a debate question.

But there's a bigger issue than that. Are we going to make religion a litmus test for political office? The WELS has posted a sober response to this whole debacle on their website, and this is one of the very legitimate points they make. They also point out that the current pope, while still John Paul II's head of doctrine, penned a document essentially saying that all religions besides Catholicism are not legitimate. This was endorsed by JPII.

Here's the link:


MN_Bobster said...

Good thing you get to heaven through God and not your religious affiliation. You also get good government through good elected officials, not through party affiliations. Vote on the basis of what your government to be.

Anonymous said...

RE...History is full of sick rulers who, sufering from delusions of grandure, claimed authority from God...so let's run the experiment and eliminate God from the picture entirely...oh wait...we already had that...Mao, Lenin, Stalin, North Korea and hundreds of millions dead. Better luck next argument...

Anonymous said...

WELS church( to which MICHELE BACHMANN belongs), DOCTRINAL statement includes the following

'....This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of
the Pope.
On this account they ought to desert and execrate
the Pope
with his adherents as the kingdom of
just as Christ has commanded, Mt 7:15: "Beware of false prophets." And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed, Gal 1:8; Tit 3:10; and in 2 Co 6:14 he says: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: For what communion hath light with darkness?"

Bob Waters said...

Check this out.

Excuse me, but Jesus himself said more than once that faith in Him is necessary for salvation (John 3:18, John 3:36, and Mark 16:16 come to mind). I take it, then, that Jesus is not a good Christian for teaching that all Muslims will go to hell? In fact, except for the liberal churches, all Protestants believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, as the New Testament consistently teaches.

Interesting that when JFK was elected the Catholic church taught that all Protestants were going to hell. In fact, the Catholic church has never repealed the decrees of the Council of Trent. Why, then, is the theology of the Reformation so shocking, when Catholicism gets a pass?

Bob Waters said...

BTW... was the Council of Trent infallible? Either it was wrong, or the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II was, since the latter describes people who believe the things anathamatized in the former. And before anybody even says it, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was merely a word-game, an agreement on a formula using words which Lutherans and Catholics define differently. Except for the ELCA, which is virtually univeralist, neither Catholics nor Lutherans have changed their doctrines of justification. In fact, if the Catholic church did, it would be repudiating its own claim of indefectibility.

So again... why the double standard?

Bob Waters said...

There is hardly any distinctive doctrine of the Lutheran church, btw, which the ELCA continues to insist upon. By any historical standard, its claim to being Lutheran at all is very questionable.

The rest of Lutheranism in America would agree with Ms. Bachman's church.

mrmeadowlark said...

According to my Christians Beliefs, Michele Bachmann, being a Protestant who is married to a Catholic, is "Unequally Yoked" with an unbeliever, as Roman Catholics are NOT Christians. The Bible says not to be unequally yoked with Unbelievers. For this reason, I have never supported Michele Bachmann in any of her political endeavours, and never will.