Essential Christian confessions. "The Augsburg Confessions".

The opposition to the RCC wrote it.

still not Word of God!
it's 100% word of man.

Like the words pastors all over the world preached today?
Only these words changed the world, bringing the word of God back to the people.
These words united the the prince's of Germany to make a stand against the papists and caused a reformation that put the word of God in the hands of average joe like you and me.

Like the words pastors all over the world preached today?
Only these words changed the world, bringing the word of God back to the people.

ironic huh?
not using word for word has gained people while using word for word has not profited much.

Yeshua said, His words [the Father speaking through Him] were not for everyone but for those who would understand it.

Matthew 19:11 But He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this saying—only those to whom it has been given.


the goal is not twist Scripture for gain [False Doctrine], but to tell it exactly how it is written for those who it's been given to!

German monarchs were stretched thin with RCC taxes by the time Luther struck out. To build St. Peter’s Basilica the Roman priests laid heavy burdens upon all regions. When Luther was invited to Rome to resolve his theses (he would have been killed) the German monarchs were all to ready to give him asylum. Codifying Luther’s teaching was the means to denounce RCC taxation. But much of the liturgy remained (especially the idea of “priests and laity”). Luther was, after all, a Roman priest. That is why even today, Lutheranism is referred to as Roman Catholic-lite.

Dividing the priests from the laity is demonic. In Christ we are all included in the High Priest: we are royal priests.

The opposition to the RCC wrote it.

But why did the Augsburg Confession condemn Anabaptists? Specially when their doctrine about the Holy Spirit was biblical? As a matter of fact the Reformers persecuted and executed Anabaptists. This was evil, and totally nullified all their other teachings.

I think the opposing point, that some are trying to make, is this: If one holds to a Confession of Faith exclusively, then that one could be trapped or ensnared in it.

While Confessions of Faith are useful, in defining a point or points of understanding, they should not be used as an end all to Biblical understanding.

I don't know about anyone else, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Confessions, like all theology and commentaries made by men are essentially worthless.

As I said before, everyone I know who lives by confessions—without exception—says the confession does not conflict with scripture at any point. But a confession is only man's interpretation of scripture; it's not unlike a theological commentary or a "dynamic equivalency" version of the Bible. The spin you get is in keeping with the author's interpretation.

First John 2:27-26 says: "These things I wrote to you concerning those who deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you about all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him."

The Holy Spirit's anointing is living and true; it's reliable. Confessions and theology are dead. Someone may say the Spirit-filled words of someone who live centuries ago are also reliable. However, why would someone exchange the reliable anointing of the Holy Spirit today for man's words penned centuries ago: which may or may not be reliable? The Lord's purpose wasn't to make us dependent on theology but on the Holy Spirit. History has it's place and we shouldn't divorce ourselves from it, but by the same token we shouldn't live in the past.

The Lord's purpose was defined in His word: Our teacher is the Holy Spirit as revealed to us in His inspired word and within fellowship with other believers (here and now). When we start using dead theology as our guide it's a recipe for disaster. Jesus strongly condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees for relying on their own commentaries rather than on the scriptures. When we start using theological commentaries it's almost inevitable that they will begin to have more weight that the living inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"Why do you seek the living among the dead?" Luke 24:5

Yep, and today among those with no regard for the history of the Church and what the saints of old had to say;

we have numerous heretical groups. Some of which are massive, like the NAR. They claim to be hearing stuff from the Holy Ghost but their words turn up false.

If believers understood the history of the church they wouldnt be deceived by such things.

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree. And if you can find an issue with the Augsburge Confessions that needs re-thought or changed I will gladly discuss it with you.
I think mostly that people searching for latest and greatest ideas have gotten them into more of a mess.

I don't know about anyone else, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Confessions, like all theology and commentaries made by men are essentially worthless.

As I said before, everyone I know who lives by confessions—without exception—says the confession does not conflict with scripture at any point. But a confession is only man's interpretation of scripture; it's not unlike a theological commentary or a "dynamic equivalency" version of the Bible. The spin you get is in keeping with the author's interpretation.

First John 2:27-26 says: "These things I wrote to you concerning those who deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you about all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him."

The Holy Spirit's anointing is living and true; it's reliable. Confessions and theology are dead. Someone may say the Spirit-filled words of someone who live centuries ago are also reliable. However, why would someone exchange the reliable anointing of the Holy Spirit today for man's words penned centuries ago: which may or may not be reliable? The Lord's purpose wasn't to make us dependent on theology but on the Holy Spirit. History has it's place and we shouldn't divorce ourselves from it, but by the same token we shouldn't live in the past.

The Lord's purpose was defined in His word: Our teacher is the Holy Spirit as revealed to us in His inspired word and within fellowship with other believers (here and now). When we start using dead theology as our guide it's a recipe for disaster. Jesus strongly condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees for relying on their own commentaries rather than on the scriptures. When we start using theological commentaries it's almost inevitable that they will begin to have more weight that the living inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

"Why do you seek the living among the dead?" Luke 24:5

Article IV. Of Justification.
1 Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2 Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3 This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

This is an article, on which most 'Reformers" and others stand on. Justification by faith and faith alone. It has been around and accepted for a long time. Thus, it has hemmed in the thinking of these groups. Let me ask a few questions:

Is anyone Justified, before God, by their faith? I would argue Scripture says... No. We are justified before our own conscience by faith. It is by the faith, that we come to know of our justification. Justification, for the Elect, was accomplished in the mind of God. It was carried out by the Faithfulness of His Son. Justification of the Elect, was never in doubt. It was planned in the Eternal Covenant (Heb. 13:20), and all of the Elect, were in Christ, when He went to Calvary. Therefore, the Elect, were justified by the Father's Eternal Plan and His Son's Person and Work - not upon their believing. Once they become believers, they believe God's Word is God's Truth and this is credited to them as a form of righteousness.

This Article of Justification, says the following: "..when they believe that they are received into favor..." The Bible does not say we enter into favor, with God, when we believe. Believers entered into favor with God from all eternity. He bestowed His mercy and compassion, upon the Elect, before the foundation of the world. Before anyone was even yet in existence.

You're talking about predestination.
If you look at part 3 about God imputing the faith that saves. I think you will find that if we have disagreement it is purely semantic unless you are agreeing with the extreme Calvinists

The reason I was making this point, is this: If one does not fully understand the workings of Salvation and teaches that one can be justified or declared righteous through their faith, then the door is open to the Arminian concept of Salvation. In this then, the doctrine of Depravity is denied. If everyone has the ability to make a choice for Christ, then God moving first upon the sinner is not needed. God's Election is pointless. The Holy Spirit regenerating one, is not needed. Therefore, every aspect of Salvation will be determined in the temporal existence. This then denies, that what is set in Eternity cannot be undone in time.