The Office of the Pope and the/an "Antichrist"

I know, to my Roman Catholic friends, that sounds very harsh.  So instead of presenting the Lutheran perspective on this (which you may read at the link), I'd like to give you just the words of the Roman Catholic Church on this teaching, with minor commentary on the passages.  I've tried to keep everything in context, although some passages are rather lengthy.  I included links to where the entire documents I quote from can be read in full so that you can investigate the context for yourself if you so choose.

The purpose of this post is not so much to change the minds of my Roman Catholic friends, but rather to explain where I come from when I say that the office of the Pope is an Antichrist because I know it angers some of them (and from their perspective, I can understand why).

Before that, however, I would be remiss if I didn't define "Antichrist".  Contrary to what Dispensationalists, Classic Pre-Millennialists, and Post-Millennialists errantly teach, the Antichrist is a religious, not political, figure.  There is not only one, but many, Antichrists (1 John 2:18).  An Antichrist is anyone who puts themself in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching.  I could easily make a laundry list of protestants who certainly fit the latter portion of that definition (for example, I would include folks like Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Patricia King, Beth Moore, Charles Finney, Jacobus Arminus, and maybe to a lesser extent, even John Calvin--and we haven't even gotten to the heretics I write about weekly).

The Christian Cyclopedia defines 'Antichrist' as:

Term used in the NT (1) of all false teachers (1 John 2:18; 4:3) and (2) of one outstanding adversary of Christ (1 John 2:18). Characteristics of the Antichrist are mentioned, e.g., in Daniel 11; 2 Thessalonians 2.

As to why Lutherans consider the Office of the Pope to be an "Antichrist", I give you the following Roman Catholic documents.  Keeping the definition of Antichrists above in mind (anyone who puts themselves in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching), the words below kind of speak for themselves.


From the Bull Unam Sanctam (1302):

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].  Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' "

Vicar means "to stand in place of".  The Pope, as "Vicar of Christ", stands in place of Christ since they cannot be two, but one.  This is essentially their first argument, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, to the Pope having dominion over the Left and Right Hand Kingdoms (a discussion for another time).

"This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]*. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are subject to anyone but God (not the Pope, not Peter, not anyone).  The only way for Catholics to make the argument that all humans are subject to the Pontiff is by saying the Pope stands in place of Christ.  This, then, would fall under both false teaching and placing oneself in the place of Christ, both of which fall under the definition of an "Antichrist".

* Probably not the time for this discussion, but Jesus' statement "On this rock I shall build my Church" refers to Peter's confession ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."), not Peter in specific.  Additionally, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," etc. refers to the Office of the Keys, not Peter specifically.  A simple look at the original text in Greek makes this very clear.


From Session 6 of the Council of Florence (1439):

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

Again, nowhere in Scripture is the Pope (or anyone but God) given "primacy" over the world, nor is Peter or the line of Popes given authority to stand as the "Vicar of Christ", nor is anyone but God the Father of all Christians.  It is dangerous to put one's trust in man rather than God, especially when God gives no man such status.


Interestingly, The Council of Trent (following the Lutheran and protestant reformations) does not mention the Pope (at least on this topic).  Considering it was such a point of contention, and that both Lutherans and protestants raged in many ways against the Pope, one would think that would be the prime topic of such a council.


From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

"4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.   

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41]."

Christ, not Peter (or the Office of the Roman Pontiff) is the Cornerstone and foundation of the Church.

"6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends."

The strength of the catholic church (universal church) is faith in Christ, not faith in the primacy of the Pope.



From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), Chapter 4:

"6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.  Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60]."

In other words, Peter never sinned in his teaching and the Pope (office) has never sinned in its teaching.  Nevermind that Peter was called "Satan" by Christ and told to get behind him (Matthew 16:13-23, the previous verses included for context--just after Peter's confession of faith that is the foundation of the church, he dares to rebuke the Lord and is rebuked himself), denied Christ three times (the only mortal sin is denial of God and blasphemy of the Holy Ghost--Matthew 26:71-75, Mark 14:66-68, Luke 22:54-62, and John 18:15-27), hypocritically participated with the Judaizers when it suited him (Galatians 2:11-21); and nevermind that Catholic doctrine has 'evolved' and sometimes contradicts itself because of the proclamations of various Popes.  No, none have ever erred or sinned in their teaching, including Peter.  (Sorry, I really was trying to keep the snark to a minimum...)

"7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

See the previous comment.  Always speaking the truth and with never-failing faith.  Was Peter's faith never-failing when he denied Christ?  Was he truthful when he denied his Savior?  When he rebuked Jesus?  When he participated with the Judaizers (a heretical sect, I might add)?

"9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ["from the chair"], that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Always truthful, never-failing faith and now infallible (a person who cannot fail, as opposed to inerrant, meaning without error in fact).  And yet the evidence is to the contrary.  Peter himself was clearly not perfect, not always truthful, and not always faithful to God.  He was a man, just like the rest of us.


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (note: I removed the footnotes for readability, if you want to see those, they are at the link):

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Again, the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" or "the one who stands in the place of Christ".

"891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

In other words, the Ex Cathedra declarations of the Pope are to be viewed and believed as if it was Scripture itself.

"892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

And here, that the non-Ex Cathedra declarations are to be adhered to with "religious assent", while distinct from the "assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."  In other words, not quite infallible, but it almost might as well be.


Finally, from Vatican II (1965):

"2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches."

Once again, the Office of the Pope (the Roman Pontiff) in the place of God the Father and God the Son.  Nowhere in Scripture is this power given to any human.


A few brief notes in closing.

In Confession and Absolution, a Lutheran minister would say, "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  This power comes from Matthew 16:19, where the Office of the Keys (all ministers of God) are given the power to bind and loose sins.  This is not the same as proclaiming oneself the "Vicar of Christ", because this power was given to ministers by Christ--anything beyond that was not a power given to the pastors and ministers.

There is no need for the office of infallibility because our doctrine is clear and does not change: our doctrine comes from Scripture, and no utterances of man should ever be held on the same level as Scripture.

An interesting thought from when we did a study on this in Church: the Roman Catholic Church has but one Sacrament, the Pope.  Because all power and authority are given to the Pope according to Roman Catholic teaching, all sacraments would lead back to him rather than God.

At some point, in a separate post, I will write about the three reasons why the Pope is not the head of both the Left-Hand and Right-Hand Kingdoms as he claims.  If anything, he would "rule" in (but not be the head of) the Right-Hand Kingdom alone and his (meaning the office as a whole) intrusion into the Left-Hand Kingdom has caused many problems throughout history.

Heresies of the Week: Monarchianism, Adoptionism, Dynmanic Monarchianism, and Sabellianism

Since I missed last week (bad way to start the New Year, no?), I thought I would give you a few "big", interrelated heresies this week: Monarchianism, Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism--similar, but slightly distinct) and Sabellianism (more commonly known as Modalism).

Monarchianism is a 2nd century heresy that emphasizes God as one person—the Father (antitrinitarian). It originally rose as an attempt to combat Tritheism by overemphasizing (to the point of diminishing and eliminating two persons of the Trinity) the singularity of God. There are two contradictory models of Monarchianism: Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism) and Sabellianism (or Modalism). Psilanthropism (and, by extension, Unitarianism) is considered an Adoptionism heresy, and Noeticism and Patripassianism are considered Sabellianism heresies (although Noeticism came first, historically).

Adoptionism is a 2nd century heresy of the Arianism family. It purports that Jesus was ‘adopted’ as the Son of God at either His baptism, His resurrection or His ascension (depending on which sect to whom you were speaking) because of His godly human life up until that point. Some historians have traced it all the way back to the time of Christ on earth. It was one of two main forms of Monarchianism (the other being Sabellianism, also known as Modalism). Adoptionism is also known as “Dynamic Monarchianism”, and denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Adoptionism was condemned as heretical by a decree from Pope Victor (who was Pope from 190-198). Samosatenism was a 3rd century adoptionist heresy that taught Jesus was a man who ‘kept’ himself sinless and ultimately achieved union with God (while considered closer to Adoptionism, it appears to not fit well with either branch of Monarchianism), after which it seemed to ‘die’ out. It reemerged in the 8th century in Spain (Spanish Adoptionism), teaching then that Christ was the Son of God with respect to His divine nature, but Jesus, as a man, was merely the adopted Son of God; and again from the 12th century on as “Neo-Adoptionism”. Psilanthropism was the 18th century Unitarianism take on Adoptionism.

Dynamic Monarchianism: see Adoptionism. This is a Monarchianism and Arianism heresy. The main distinction between Adoptionism and Dynamic Monarchianism (usually used interchangeably) is that they deny the Logos, or person of Christ, and teach that the Holy Ghost is simply a force of or the presence of the Father. They teach that Jesus was only a man. Unitarianism, known then as Psilanthropism, picked up on this heresy in the 19th century, still practicing it today, along with Christadelphianism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) is an antitrinitarian Monarchianism (the other branch being Adoptionism, or Dynamic Monarchianism) heresy that teaches the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are simply different modes or aspects of One God, perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in one Godhead. They do not deny the divinity or humanity of Jesus (and while they believe in a singular God, the “mode” of the Son was imbued in Jesus), like believers of Arianism or Monophysitism. There is no way for God to be all three modes simultaneously; He may only be one at a time. The United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches still teach Modalism today, saying that the mode of God is “Jesus only” now and that baptism is required for salvation (no unbaptized person will ever be “saved”). On the other hand, believers in Unitarianism teach that God simply is one person, with no distinct “modes”.

As mentioned in the descriptions, it is important to understand these heresies because they are still being practices in several "church" bodies.  So next time a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door or you run into a Unitarian, you have a conversation starter!

(Special) Heresy of the Week: Arianism (also Semi-Arianism and Macedonianism)

Happy Slappy!!!

For those not familiar with the story of St. Nicholas and Arius at the Council of Nicea, my opening remark might require a little explanation.

Rather than go into a history of St. Nicholas, Pastor and Bishop of Myra, I'd like to focus more on Arius and Arianism.  For background on St. Nicholas, please read some of the plethora of posts on the topic from places such as Ask the Pastor (Pr. Snyder), Lest Every Man Be Blind (Pr. Koch) and Aardvark Alley.  Today (6 December) is, by the way, the Feast Day for St. Nicholas.

Before we get to the fun, here's a brief synopsis of Arianism.

Arianism is the 4th century teaching of Arius which denied the divinity of Jesus and the essence of the Trinity (antitrinitarian). Arius taught that the Father created the Son as His first creation. The Son then created the Holy Ghost, and the universe after that (not the Father or the Trinity, only the Son). Christ was considered to be adopted by the Father since He was merely a creation of the Father’s, but because He had great position and authority, He was to be looked upon by humans as a God and worshiped accordingly. At the First Council of Nicaea in 325, Arius was declared a heretic (the Nicene Creed was written specifically to counter his false teachings), exonerated at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 after recanting his heresy, and condemned again posthumously in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople (where the Nicene Creed was slightly modified to combat Macedonianism). Arianism had one of the largest followings of any heresy, and it was feared that they might grow so large as to take over the church. Their main teaching, that the Son of God did not always exist, and is distinct from and “less” than the Father because He was created by the Father, existed as a human (but heretical) way to help explain the Hypostatic Union of Christ’s two natures and attempt to humanize the Trinity.

As the story goes, at the Council of Nicea there were many heated discussions between Arius and his followers, and the Orthodox Bishops in attendance.  During one of these lively exchanges, St. Nicholas is said to have slapped Arius for his heresy.  St. Nicholas was then banned from the council until he apologized.  Puts a whole new light on Santa, doesn't it?

Why would a Bishop get so worked up that he would actually resort to hitting someone?  The teaching of Arius was so pervasive at the time that many were worried it would take over the Church.  As mentioned before, it is an understandable human way to try and describe the unexplainable  but that does not make it any less heretical  

Ultimately, it comes down to how one views the relationship between God the Father and God the Son: homousian ("of the same substance", the Orthodox teaching) or heterousian ("differing in substance", the heretical, or Arian, teaching).  Now might be a good time to review my post on the Trinity for more on how the Trinity works.

While this story may be just a legend (although records of Nicholas being 'suspended' and 'reinstated' seems to verify it to a large degree), the lesson from it is very important: we should take heresy very seriously, and so what we can to stamp... or slap... it out.

And, since we're on this topic, while we don't see much pure Arianism today, we do see some Semi-Arianism (or Macedonianism) floating about from time to time.

Semi-Arianism is a slightly softer version of Arianism. Rather than teaching that the Son was created, and therefore of a different essence than the Father, Semi-Arianism teaches that the Son was neither created nor uncreated in the same sense that other beings are created (meaning He was created, just in a different sense than anyone/anything else).

Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism and Tropicism) is an anti-Nicene Creed heretical sect that denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost during the 4th and 5th centuries. While distinct from Arianism, some aspects of Macedonianism are similar in that they also reject Christ as being of the same substance as the Father (but regarded Him as of a similar substance as the Father, making them closer to Semi-Arianism). Because they believed that the Holy Ghost was a creation of the Son, the 381 First Council of Constantinople added phrases to the Nicene Creed to ensure it was known and taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son and is coequal with the Father and Son.

Anti-trinitarian heresies are a particular pet peeve of mine because they deny the most basic of our Christian beliefs, or attempt to make the idea of our unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity more palatable to "logic".  Doubt there, and why even bother being a Christian otherwise?  Anti-trinitarian heresies are pervasive today in various incarnations, often more subtle or in different form from Arianism, but they're still alive and kicking.  Maybe we need to take a page out of good ol' St. Nick's book and start slapping a few heretics of our own... at least mentally.

Infant Faith and Paedobaptism

After my miscarriage earlier this year, I spent a lot of time thinking about infant faith.  I took great comfort in the fact that while I was pregnant for those few short weeks, I was able to attend our district synodical convention and hear the Word preached several times there, along with attending church when the campaign schedule allowed.  As a Lutheran, or maybe more broadly, as someone who believes sincerely in infant faith and infant baptism, that gave me the hope that my child did hear the Word, which is all that is needed for faith.  God is good and faithful, and I will trust in His mercies with my child that I will never get to meet here on earth.

While Lutherans (and other subscribers to paedobaptism--another name for infant baptism) believe that we are conceived with Original Sin present from that very first moment that sparks life, we also believe that because faith comes through hearing, that faith, too, can follow at a very early age--perhaps even before birth.  Who are we to say what God may or may not be able to accomplish?  There is no "age of accountability  (for that denies Original Sin being from conception), nor is there a need for a believer's baptism.

Now that I'm expecting again (14 weeks now!), it has been on my mind once more.  At least in our Lutheran synod (LC-MS), the Pastor blesses the children who are not receiving communion with a remembrance of their baptism.  I was so moved yesterday while we celebrated the Lord's Supper.  Perhaps I've just never noticed this, or perhaps it is something that not all Pastors do, but my Pastor also blessed my unborn child, asking for God to guard it and bring it safely to His promises in baptism.  What an incredible statement of our beliefs and our faith that even the littlest among us may also be worked upon by the Holy Ghost to be brought to faith!

I was two weeks old when I was baptized, and I do not remember a single day when I didn't have faith.  For me, it was never a question of when I had faith, but perhaps when didn't I?  I certainly can't remember.

When I was younger (maybe 7-8 years ago), I started writing a paper on why infant baptism is Biblically sound doctrine.  I've since updated it several times, and it only seems to get longer every time I look at it.  However, since 50-ish pages in a word document do not translate well into a blog post (particularly when there are lengthy appendices), I'm simply going to share some of the highlights here (mostly related Bible Verses and Early Church Father quotes).  If you'd like to see the whole thing, feel free to comment or shoot me an email and I'll send it your way.

The issue of baptism, or more specifically, infant baptism, often boils down to three simple questions.  First, what is the purpose of baptism?  Second, can an infant, who cannot make a “choice”, have faith?  Third, can a “choice” to believe bring salvation to you, and if so, what is the role of the Godhead in this “choice”? (note: those are the basis for the rest of the paper)

• Genesis 7:1-9:17; Exodus 14:13-31; Numbers 20:1-13; Joshua 3-4; 2 Kings 5:1-19; Ezekiel 36:22-29; Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:4-9; Luke 3:3-18 and 1 Corinthians 10:2, 11—the promises of water connected with the house of Israel (including John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Israel’s redeemer) are used to save and destroy, a dichotomy shown distinctly in baptism through the drowning of the Old Adam and birth of regeneration baptism gives; also showing the promise to all people of God.
• Psalm 51:2; Isaiah 1:16; Isaiah 4:4; Isaiah 12:2-3; Ezekiel 36:22-29 and Zechariah 13:1—the Old Testament points to salvation through baptism.
• Isaiah 32:15-17; Isaiah 44:3-5; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Ezekiel 39:29; Joel 2:28-32; Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16; Luke 11:13; Luke 24:49; John 1:33; John 4:10-14; John 7:37-39; John 14:16-17; John 15:26-27; John 16:7-14; Acts 1:4-5, 8; Acts 2:1-21, 32-39; Acts 10:43-48; Acts 11:15-18; Acts 15:7-9; Romans 8:11-13; Romans 14:17 and Ephesians 3:16—the promise of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament; the promise of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is fulfilled through the rest of the Testament and through our baptism into Christ.
• 1 Peter 3:20-21—baptism actually redeems not through the power of the individual but of the resurrected Christ.
• John 3:5-8 and Galatians 3:27-28—the effects of being in the flesh could only be countered by water and Spirit, by a baptism that brings with it the power of the Spirit.
• Romans 6 and Hebrews 2:14-15—one participates in Christ's death through baptism.
• Job 14:1; Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Ecclesiastes 7:20; John 3:5-6; Romans 3:20, 23; Romans 5:12, 18; Romans 8:6-8; Ephesians 2:1 and 1 John 1:10—speak of original sin and the necessity of baptism for ALL.
• 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:50 and Romans 8:6-8—we cannot, of our own will, submit to God.  The Holy Spirit, through the Word, causes faith in us.
• Luke 3:3, 6—baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, for salvation.
• John 15:16; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 and Ephesians 2:9-10—we are predestined to faith, that is, it is not the work of man but of God by which we are atoned.
• Romans 10:14-15, 17—faith comes from what is heard - faith is a miraculous result of the Word of God.
• Romans 9:16 and Philippians 2:12-13—salvation cannot come by the hands of any man, but through the work of God in you.
• John 4:14; Ephesians 2:8-10; Romans 10:9-12, 14 and James 2:14-19—faith is the only way to salvation.
• Matthew 14:22-33—we come to Christ on (in) the water.
• Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-27; 2 Peter 2:20-22; Matthew 13:5-7, 18, 20-22 and Luke 8:13—we can fall away from our faith, once saved is not always saved.
• Colossians 2:11-13—baptism is the new circumcision.
• Exodus 4:24-26—the importance of circumcision and of obedience to God’s commands.
• Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-39; Acts 11:14, Acts 16:14-15, 30-31, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16-17 and Colossians 2:11-12—who is to be baptized - whole households, which includes infants, were baptized.
• Joshua 8:35—infants have always been included in the Biblical understanding of family and nations.
• Psalm 8:2; Psalm 22:9-10; Psalm 71:5-6; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 18:1-6; Matthew 21:15-16; Luke 1:15, 41, 44; Luke 18:15-17—infants can (and do) have faith.
• 2 Timothy 3: 14-16—Timothy had faith from infancy.
• Matthew 18:1-6; Mark 10:14; Luke 10:21; Luke 18:15-17; Acts 11:14; Acts 16:15, 33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16—the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to children.
• Mark 16:16; Acts 2:37-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-10; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:25-28; Ephesians 5:26; Colossians 2:11-14; 1 Peter 3:20-21 and Titus 3:5—the blessings of baptism.

Adapted below from two article (found here and here) are just a few examples from early church fathers (many more exist), showing how infant baptism has been practiced since the inception of Christianity.

• Polycarp (69-155), at his martyrdom, said, “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ.”
• Justin Martyr (100 - 166) stated that, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years.”
• Irenaeus (130 - 200) wrote in his Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”
• All 66 bishops at the Council of Carthage in 254 stated that, “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God... especially infants... those newly born.”
• Origen (185 - 254), in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9, said that “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”  He continues: “The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit.”  Origen also stated in his Homily on Luke 14, that “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.”
• Cyprian (215 - 258) writes, “In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man... Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision... we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.”
• The Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: “If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized... let him be anathema.”
• Augustine (354 - 430), declared in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, that, “If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” And again, “Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.”  In Enchiridion, Augustine declares, “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin.”

As we can see, just from this, infant baptism is not only the Biblically accurate doctrine on baptism, but it has been in practice since the beginning of Christianity (I would especially point out Polycarp, one of the Apostle John’s disciples—look how long he lived (86 years) and how long he had been a faithful servant of the Lord Christ (86 years)—coincidence?  I think not…).  Believer’s baptism, relatively speaking, is a new idea that was developed during the reformation by protestants.  There is simply no Biblical or historical precedent to show that it was practiced in any way prior to then.  Now, obviously, adults were baptized, but those are instances of conversion, which is an entirely separate matter.  We notice that when God says confess with your mouth and be baptized, that there is not a priority in it, no need for one always to come before the other (particularly if you understand Greek).  As long as you confess and believe, you are justified, sanctified and atoned for.  Why would you deny baptism to the believers when God commands that all His children be baptized?

There was only ONE major opponent to infant baptism can be found before the 1520s.  From the second article linked above: 

“In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160 - 215), bishop of Carthage, Africa. His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the children of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins at the "puberty, of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man out of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.  Tertullian’s stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.”

The Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord) address Baptism (in general) and Infant Baptism (in specific) numerous times.

• Augsburg Confession: Article IX: Of Baptism.
• Apology to the Augsburg Confession: Article IX: Of Baptism.
• Smalcald Articles: V. Of Baptism.
• Small Catechism: The Sacrament of Holy Baptism.
• Large Catechism: Holy Baptism. and Of Infant Baptism.
• Visitation Articles: Concerning Holy Baptism.

Why I am not "protestant"

It might be easier for all three "protestant" sects to share only what I actually agree with them on, rather than disagree.  I think the "agree" lists will be much shorter in all three cases than the "disagree" lists.

I'm referencing below strict adherence to Arminianism, Calvinism and Radical Reformed teachings, rather than the various denominations and their further misunderstandings of theology today.  Most of them are even worse and I would agree with them less than I do with their root sects.

Arminianism

1. The existence of Free Will (although they seriously over-emphasize it to the point of heresy)
2. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
3. Infallibility of the Word of God

Calvinism

1. Original Sin (or Total Depravity from TULIP)
2. Unconditional Election ("U" from TULIP, although they misapply and misunderstand it)
3. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
4. Infallibility of the Word of God

Radical Reformed

1. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
2. Infallibility of the Word of God

---------------------------------------------------------

And... that's all I can think of off the top of my head.  I'll add to these lists as I think of more, because I feel like there has to be more than this, but I honestly can't think of anything else at the moment.

They're so short because I disagree with all three on everything from tradition in the church to Justification and Sanctification, to eschatology, to free will/predestination (none get it right on this count), to the sacraments, to soteriology, to civil affairs and the church's role in that, to law and gospel, to the office of the keys, to confession, to even simple things like the creeds... and on and on.  When so much that is basic to our faith can't be agreed upon... we have problems.

This is why I've often said if I can't be Lutheran, I'd be Roman Catholic.  I agree with them on far more than I disagree with them, certainly in comparison to "protestants" at least.

Bible Study Notes: God is...

I warned my Pastor that if I started coming to Bible Study regularly, I would ask obnoxious, obscure and time-consuming questions.  He learned today that I was not kidding.

While discussing the eternal union of Human and Divine in the Son, I had to ask how we describe that to other people (Christians and non-Christians), since we consider Jesus to retain His human body and nature even now (Divine and Human eternally joined), without anthropomorphizing the rest of the Godhead (the Father and the Spirit).  So, we spent at least half an hour on this (instead of studying Revelations...) and here is what we determined.  Interestingly, Pastor felt like he didn't answer my question, but he definitely did.  It just took me until the drive home to realize it.

The Trinity and who God is basic Christian doctrine that almost everyone, regardless of denomination, agrees upon (sans the heretics).  However, it is also unbelievably complex and not particularly logical in a mathematical sense, for example (Pastor said that after this discussion, we can all graduate Seminary because of the complexity of the topic we just discussed...).  It makes sense to me, but that is largely because of faith.  To be fair, from a human perspective, I can more than understand why a non-Christian would look at this and think we're nuts.

Pastor Wolfmueller's lovely illustration.

Edit: Thanks to Becki for a link the the image my Pastor was referencing here.

First, for clarity, the Persons of God within the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity has the full Essence of God.  The Son has two Natures: fully God and fully Man, or both Divine and Human.  So that is what I mean by those terms when I use them below.

The Essence of God:

God is the Father.  The Father (A) is God (D).  (A = D)

God is the Son.  The Son (B) is God (D).  (B=D)

God is the Spirit.  The Spirit (C) is God (D).  (C=D)

However... the Persons of God within the Trinity:

The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father.  (A ≠ B and B ≠ A) 

The Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.  (B ≠ C and C ≠ B)

The Spirit is not the Father, and the Father is not the Spirit.  (C ≠ A and A ≠ C)

The Natures of God:

The Father is fully Divine in Nature.

The Son is both fully Divine and fully Human in Nature (Personal Union).

The Spirit is fully Divine in Nature.

God is fully Divine in Nature, joined through the Son to humanity.

Additionally, all Persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal (no one is above the others, and no one existed before the others).  However, we would say that the Father beget the Son (that both name are essential to the Persons of that member of the Trinity) and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND Son--while all three remain co-equal and co-eternal, always existing together and without "rank" in the Godhead.

All of which brings us to my question, which essentially is how to describe the Nature of the Son as being separate from the other Persons of the Trinity without being separate from Essence of God, which all three persons of the Trinity share in full.  

When the Son took the form of flesh (fully God and fully Man), did the essence of God change (since the Father, Son and Spirit are all fully God)?  No, because the Divine = the Flesh in the Son, but the Flesh ≠ the Divine in the Son.  This, by the by, was the answer to my question: because the Son is fully Divine, therefore fully God, God is joined into humanity in the Son, but since neither the Father nor Spirit are the same as the Person of the Son, they cannot be joined in humanity as well, even though both, like the Son, are also fully God.

This is also the reason we (meaning Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans) can, should, and do call Mary the Theotokos ("God-Bearer" or Mother of God) rather than those (all not listed above--basically, protestants and heretics--not implying that the two are the same) who would call her Christotokos ("Christ-Bearer" or Mother of Christ)--because Christ is fully Divine, and therefore fully God in Essence and Nature.  Nota Bene: the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared "Christotokos" to be heretical.

For more on how all this works, the Athanasian Creed (written to combat Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Jesus, as well as those accusing Christians of polytheism--the worship, in Christianity's case, of a Trinity of gods, instead of the Trinity in one God) does a beautiful job of explaining "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."  It's more lengthy than the Apostles' or Nicene-Constantinople Creeds, which is why the Lutheran Church at least only uses it on Trinity Sunday, but it is the most succinct, yet thorough, explanation of the Persons, Essence and Natures of God in the Trinity.

Finally, one of Pastor Wolfmueller's great observation was with regards to the question of "having a relationship with Jesus."  Technically speaking, everyone has a relationship with Jesus, some are just very bad ones (i.e. non-believers).  Christians don't really have a "relationship" with Jesus, though.  No.  Rather, through baptism, we are joined with Jesus, and we are one with Christ and become partakers of the Divine Nature (knows as the mystical union or mysterious union--2 Peter 1:2-4).  

Just like the "So when were you saved?" question I despise, the "Do you have a relationship with Jesus?" question is on my "hate list" for questions asked by well meaning, but theologically illiterate, Christians.  Both are totally the wrong question, a) because both emphasize your role in salvation (which is only to reject faith, but by emphasizing more than that, these questions are Arminianist, and therefore Synchronistic, and, consequently, heretical), and b) because the real questions are "When were you baptized?" and "Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?", respectively, if you must ask one of the two--although the latter here ("Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?") is often what is meant by the previous above ("So when were you saved?").