Lutheran's

[conan025]

All,

Several key misunderstandings are occurring in this thread. As a Confessional Lutheran and In the spirit of peace I wish to correct the wrong views that seem to be occurring and include why we do not accept several key Roman teachings.

I. The solas of the Reformation - 1. Sola Scriptura - Holy Scripture is the sole NORM and JUDGE of doctrine. This does not mean that doctrine cannot and does not arise from history and tradition, simply that NOTHING can trump God’s Word. This doesn’t mean that Scripture is the sole SOURCE and that what is not mentioned cannot be pursued as open questions however.
2. We are saved by God’s Grace alone (sola gratia) by faith alone (sola fide) for the sake of Jesus Christ alone (sola Christus) - The faith of a Christian is a gift of God, and it is through this faith that we are justified and as a result of that transformation, good works follow but do not contribute to our salvation. Good works are merely the outward sign of the internal change.

II. Priesthood - Luther and confessional Lutherans continue to see the Pope as the rightful successor of St. Peter, but we deny that he is the universal head of the church on earth. We agree with the Orthodox view of church hierarchy only with authority from the “bottom up” rather than the “top down” and we have one head, Christ in Heaven and all bishops equal in authority on earth. We still have a Holy Ministry and recognize the spiritual difference between lay and ordained ministers, but acknowledge that if need be lay people can distribute the sacraments (which is nice since 1/3 of our churches don’t currently have priests).

III. Sacrifice of the Mass - We see the Holy Mass as a partaking in the sacrifice which transcends time and space, done once for all by Christ. We do not offer up Christ every time the Mass is said because that is not the job of the priest. We Lutherans acknowledge the active sacrifice but only from Christ’s perspective. The priest is the one who hands out the body and blood as sacramental gifts, not sacrifices.

IV. Elements of the Mass - We do NOT accept consubstantiation. We believe that when the Words of Institution are said the bread and wine are consecrated and Christ’s body and blood are present without altering the bread and wine. We believe in the Real Presence but for us to accept consubstantiation we would need to accept a 3rd substance which is a mixture of the previous 2 after consecration and we do not recognize a new 3rd substance. We do not accept transubstantiation because of St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he says “Is no the CUP OF THANKSGIVING for which we give thanks a participation in the BLOOD of Christ? And is not the BREAD THAT WE BREAK a participation in the BODY of Christ?”-1 Cor. 10:16-17.

I hope this sheds some light on what we believe. If you have any questions feel free to ask. We (Confessional Lutherans)are far more Roman Catholic than any other Protestants (save Anglicans).

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

Thank you for that excellent summary. As one who grew up in the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, I can vouch for its accuracy. Confessional Lutherans and Catholics should rejoice at how much we have in common. Whatever its limitations, the Joint Declaration on Justification is further testimony of this, as is the similarity in our worship, etc. May God give us the grace to truly listen to and understand one another.

Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion, that Lutheran teaching does diverge from the ancient church on a number of points. Y’all have already said enough about the Eucharist and priesthood. We both believe in salvation by grace alone, and by faith. The quibble is over Luther’s insistence on faith alone.

 

[mercygate]

All,

Several key misunderstandings are occurring in this thread. As a Confessional Lutheran and In the spirit of peace I wish to correct the wrong views that seem to be occurring and include why we do not accept several key Roman teachings.

I. The solas of the Reformation - 1. Sola Scriptura - Holy Scripture is the sole NORM and JUDGE of doctrine. This does not mean that doctrine cannot and does not arise from history and tradition, simply that NOTHING can trump God’s Word. This doesn’t mean that Scripture is the sole SOURCE and that what is not mentioned cannot be pursued as open questions however.
2. We are saved by God’s Grace alone (sola gratia) by faith alone (sola fide) for the sake of Jesus Christ alone (sola Christus) - The faith of a Christian is a gift of God, and it is through this faith that we are justified and as a result of that transformation, good works follow but do not contribute to our salvation. Good works are merely the outward sign of the internal change.

II. Priesthood - Luther and confessional Lutherans continue to see the Pope as the rightful successor of St. Peter, but we deny that he is the universal head of the church on earth. We agree with the Orthodox view of church hierarchy only with authority from the “bottom up” rather than the “top down” and we have one head, Christ in Heaven and all bishops equal in authority on earth. We still have a Holy Ministry and recognize the spiritual difference between lay and ordained ministers, but acknowledge that if need be lay people can distribute the sacraments (which is nice since 1/3 of our churches don’t currently have priests).

III. Sacrifice of the Mass - We see the Holy Mass as a partaking in the sacrifice which transcends time and space, done once for all by Christ. We do not offer up Christ every time the Mass is said because that is not the job of the priest. We Lutherans acknowledge the active sacrifice but only from Christ’s perspective. The priest is the one who hands out the body and blood as sacramental gifts, not sacrifices.

IV. Elements of the Mass - We do NOT accept consubstantiation. We believe that when the Words of Institution are said the bread and wine are consecrated and Christ’s body and blood are present without altering the bread and wine. We believe in the Real Presence but for us to accept consubstantiation we would need to accept a 3rd substance which is a mixture of the previous 2 after consecration and we do not recognize a new 3rd substance. We do not accept transubstantiation because of St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he says “Is no the CUP OF THANKSGIVING for which we give thanks a participation in the BLOOD of Christ? And is not the BREAD THAT WE BREAK a participation in the BODY of Christ?”-1 Cor. 10:16-17.

I hope this sheds some light on what we believe. If you have any questions feel free to ask. We (Confessional Lutherans)are far more Roman Catholic than any other Protestants (save Anglicans).

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

I thought it was *TRANsubstantiation *that Lutherans do not accept. Typo?

 

[AFarmer]

I considered leaving the CC for the ECLA after I got engaged. My fiance and I went to both a Lutheran church and a Catholic Church. After much study and discussion , we decided she would join RCIA.

My point is, having been exposed to both sides, I found several differences that really bothered me greatly:

1. Lutherans believe after distribution, Jesus is no longer present in the bread and wine, and it is discarded.
2. The ELCA’s stance on abortion is that it is wrong, but sometimes justifiable
3. Their stance on homosexuality was “currently under review” Although with the recent Schmeling case, I would argue we know where they stand:
   wfn.org/2007/02/msg00077.html
   The disciplinary council recommends changing the language to allow homosexual relationships within the clergy, stating the current prohibition is “flawed”.
4. The biggest factor was that Martin Luther saw fit to divide the One Church rather than try to fix it from within.

I have nothing against our Lutheran brothers and sisters. The Lutherans in her family are the least hostile to our decision to be Catholic, and I am most grateful for that. I simply feel the RCC has more truth. We do have much in common with the Lutherans and I hope they do not continue to become more liberal and slide toward the non-denominational churches.

 

[gcnuss]

AFarmer,

You wrote

1. Lutherans believe after distribution, Jesus is no longer present in the bread and wine, and it is discarded.

That may be the practice of some Lutherans, but I can assure you that neither bread nor wine are discarded in my congregation. We reserve consecrated hosts for taking communion to shut-ins or for the next Eucharist. The consecrated wine is consumed.

 

[Paleolutheran]

Reply to all,

A synod is a collection of independent churches in different districts. There is no difference between “synodical Lutherans” and “Confessional Lutherans.” All Lutherans SHOULD be confessional (they agree that the Book of Concord is the correct exposition of Scripture), but not all Lutherans are synodical. I am a member of the Missouri Synod. The main synod is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. It is NOT confessional in the same sense that Missouri and Wisconsin Synods are.

The Wisconsin and Missouri synods regard homosexuality and abortion as sins, pure and simple.

About the Eucharist, at our church consecrated bread and wine are retained for shut-ins or in case a later service runs out of wine and bread. Christ’s words don’t lose effect after time. If they think the bread and wine are still not consecrated, they are wrong. If we run out of “consecrated containers” those who took Holy Communion may drink of it, but it is preferrential for the Pastor to drink it. We occassionally would pour it out on the ground right outside the church…effectively “holy ground.”

Luther did not split the church…he was excommunicated for not recanting his beliefs about indulgences and purgatory. He never wanted to split the one church (which was ALREADY split from the Great Schism) any more than it was. That is why in the Book of Concord we do not add anything new to the catholic faith. Luther, after he was excommunicated preferred to call Lutherans “Evangelical Catholics” because he didn’t want a church body named after him.

About sola fide which is supposedly contrary to the historical church: St. Paul: “For it is by GRACE you have been SAVED through FAITH, and THIS NOT OF YOURSELF, it is the GIFT OF GOD - not by WORKS, so that no one can boast.”-Ephesians 2:8-9.

Christ - “Jesus said to the woman, ‘your faith has saved you; go in peace’”- St. Luke 7:50

Church Fathers - An excellent collection of excerpts from the fathers supporting the Lutheran solas can be found here (issuesetc.org/resource/archives/weedon.htm)).

St. Mark the Ascetic - “We who have received baptism offer good works, not by way of repayment, but to preserve the purity given to us. Every good work which we perform through our own natural powers causes us to refrain from the corresponding sin; but without grace it cannot contribute to our SANCTIFICATION.”

Faith and works go hand-in-hand, of that there is no doubt. But works follow faith and the new life we have in Holy Baptism is what allows us to do good works in the eyes of God…but that is, as St. Mark the Ascetic says, a debt we owe God…one which we can NEVER hope to repay. That is what GRACE is about. Getting something we DON’T deserve.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[conan025]

The Wisconsin and Missouri synods regard homosexuality and abortion as sins, pure and simple.

About sola fide which is supposedly contrary to the historical church: St. Paul: “For it is by GRACE you have been SAVED through FAITH, and THIS NOT OF YOURSELF, it is the GIFT OF GOD - not by WORKS, so that no one can boast.”-Ephesians 2:8-9.

Christ - “Jesus said to the woman, ‘your faith has saved you; go in peace’”- St. Luke 7:50

Church Fathers - An excellent collection of excerpts from the fathers supporting the Lutheran solas can be found here (issuesetc.org/resource/archives/weedon.htm)).

St. Mark the Ascetic - “We who have received baptism offer good works, not by way of repayment, but to preserve the purity given to us. Every good work which we perform through our own natural powers causes us to refrain from the corresponding sin; but without grace it cannot contribute to our SANCTIFICATION.”

Faith and works go hand-in-hand, of that there is no doubt. But works follow faith and the new life we have in Holy Baptism is what allows us to do good works in the eyes of God…but that is, as St. Mark the Ascetic says, a debt we owe God…one which we can NEVER hope to repay. That is what GRACE is about. Getting something we DON’T deserve.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

From what I have read, no informed Catholic would disagree with those passages from the Paul and the Church Fathers about sola fide. If one has to err, far better to err on the side of emphasizing grace. The Council of Trent specifically condemned the sort of “works righteousness” that Catholics are so often accused of. No good work is possible without God’s grace.

The Joint Declaration had its flaws, but it did show what I have long been convinced of: that both sides may be using different vocabularies, but are essentially talking about the same thing, or rather, the same Person.

 

[mercygate]

The Wisconsin and Missouri synods regard homosexuality and abortion as sins, pure and simple.

Does the LCMS also agree that contraception, as an “unnatural sexual act” (quoting Paul) is also a sin ‘pure and simple?’ My guess is that many Lutherans would agree – even if no official position has been published.

Am I wrong?

 

[Paleolutheran]

Does the LCMS also agree that contraception, as an “unnatural sexual act” (quoting Paul) is also a sin ‘pure and simple?’ My guess is that many Lutherans would agree – even if no official position has been published.

Am I wrong?

We dance around the issue and most sadly don’t have an opinion or a problem with it. I don’t know how I feel about it, but I would say my feelings about it are not the best, but I am not married nor have a girlfriend, nor am I an influential theologian, so right now it isn’t a big issue.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Paleolutheran]

From what I have read, no informed Catholic would disagree with those passages from the Paul and the Church Fathers about sola fide. If one has to err, far better to err on the side of emphasizing grace. The Council of Trent specifically condemned the sort of “works righteousness” that Catholics are so often accused of. No good work is possible without God’s grace.

The Joint Declaration had its flaws, but it did show what I have long been convinced of: that both sides may be using different vocabularies, but are essentially talking about the same thing, or rather, the same Person.

I know that no knowledgable Roman Catholic would disagree that all of our good works are a result of God’s grace. The question is whether those works we do by God’s grace justify us, or does Christ justify us through grace given to us at our baptism and good works flow from us as Christ’s grace pours out from us like a cup that is overfilled. Or is grace what “powers us up like a battery” to do good works with faith to attain justification. That is the fundamental disagreement between us I believe (imputed vs. infused righteousness).

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[mercygate]

We dance around the issue and most sadly don’t have an opinion or a problem with it. I don’t know how I feel about it, but I would say my feelings about it are not the best, but I am not married nor have a girlfriend, nor am I an influential theologian, so right now it isn’t a big issue.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

As we say in the pro-life world: NFP does not stand for “Not For Protestants!” A lot of serious Protestants “get it” about contraception.

 

[mercygate]

I know that no knowledgable Roman Catholic would disagree that all of our good works are a result of God’s grace. The question is whether those works we do by God’s grace justify us, or does Christ justify us through grace given to us at our baptism and good works flow from us as Christ’s grace pours out from us like a cup that is overfilled. Or is grace what “powers us up like a battery” to do good works with faith to attain justification. That is the fundamental disagreement between us I believe (imputed vs. infused righteousness).

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

Hammer: meet nailhead.

Catholics believe that we have free will (otherwise we could not love) and that the grace God actually DOES something to us towards our sanctification. Experientially, it comes down to the same thing. Protestants of a Lutheran bent say those who have no works are shown to have no faith, “said” faith or dead faith. Catholics say that works without faith are dead.

 

[rr1213]

Hammer: meet nailhead.

Catholics believe that we have free will (otherwise we could not love) and that the grace God actually DOES something to us towards our sanctification. Experientially, it comes down to the same thing. Protestants of a Lutheran bent say those who have no works are shown to have no faith, “said” faith or dead faith. Catholics say that works without faith are dead.

I’m sure that I truly do not understand the various subtleties that both the Catholic and Protestant Churches make on the issue of faith/works, but I think that Mercygate has it right that “Experientially, it comes down to the same thing.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but both Catholics and Protestants believe that we are saved by God’s grace.

Second, from a Protestant viewpoint a faithful disciple of Christ will have in his life (1) faith and (2) works. If he lacks faith, he is not saved. If he lacks works, his faith is dead and calls into serious question whether his faith is a real, saving faith.

Third, from a Catholic viewpoint a faithful disciple of Christ will have in his life (1) faith and (2) works. If he lacks either, it calls into serious question whether his faith is a real, saving faith.

No doubt these distinctions are critical for theologians, but the more I look at it from my poor, ignorant perspective the less important the distinctions seem.

The classic Anglican statement is that “We are saved by Grace, through Faith, and unto Good Works.” See Ephesians.

 

[Researcher]

What is the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, all about? What is the point that Jesus is trying to make here? Could it not show that even those who have faith, but do nothing with it, such as the one who buries his talent, they loose what they was given them? The virgins who had faith in the coming of the master but were not prepared. What happens to those who did not feed the hungery, the thirsty, take care of the naked and the homeless? How could it not be more clear that faith alone does not get you through the gate to heaven? Even Paul states that if you have the faith to move mountains but do have have love you gain nothing.

Salvation requires love above all else. Jesus, through his death and rsurection, opened the door to heaven but without love, as demonstrated through the life of Jesus, we will not cross the threshold into His kingdom.

 

[mercygate]

The classic Anglican statement is that “We are saved by Grace, through Faith, and unto Good Works.” See Ephesians.

Ahem. Anglican? As you point out here, the position is only Anglican insofar as it comes from Paul. More correctly, this would be the “Christian” position!

 

[rr1213]

Ahem. Anglican? As you point out here, the position is only Anglican insofar as it comes from Paul. More correctly, this would be the “Christian” position!

I would not argue with that assertion, although it is only in the context of the Anglican Church that I’ve heard it stated this way. Probably a reflection of a lack of knowledge on my part than anything else…

 

[Paleolutheran]

The distinction between this may not seem important now, but when you were told you had to do so many different things to work towards the anihilation of venial sins, in other words that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t total, abuses crept in and people begin to doubt God’s mercy and grace. This is similar to why the Eastern Orthodox question what the big deal is about justification in Lutheran theology (since they hardly discuss it anyway), but they don’t look back at the history of the church to realize the abuses that crept in that many common people bought into.

The difference is this: Roman Catholic View - God’s grace enables us to have faith but that Holy Baptism forgives us from only our original sin. After that, we enter purgatory to be purged of any venial sins NOT forgiven by works which we do as a result of infused grace, such as attending the Mass, Confession, etc. Granted, we will eventually enter Heaven, we must still SUFFER for our own sins.

Protestant View - God’s grace enables us to have faith but Hoy Baptism forgives us ALL our sins and Christ’s righteousness is credited to us because we are washed in the blood of the lamb. Works flow from faith and these works GOD GAVE FOR US TO DO (Ephesians 2:12) but not to acheive salvation. No imperfect thing enters Heaven, but we are seen as perfect by Christ’s sacrifice (the Greek for “it is finished” is a monetary term meaning the slate is totally clean). Works only work towards our sanctification, but even this is Christ’s work in us (Hebrews 12:2), not our work ourselves at all (Phillip. 2:13).

Works added to faith for our salvation is against the whole message of St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and by adding our own works for justification we are undermining the sacrifice of Christ to be total. Our righteousness are like filthy rags before Him (Isa. 64:6).

Matthew 25 and the parable of the foolish virgins is just like the parable of the sower and the seed. The foolish virgins are those who “grew up quickly but had no root” or in their case, no extra oil. They did not perservere till when the bridgroom came. That is the message of the parable, those who did not have oil then went out to work to get ready for the bridegroom. Those who had oil truly were ready to wait and be vigilant. Works don’t save you, the wise virgins had true faith.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[AFarmer]

So why should we bother with good works? I suppose since James is “an epistle of straw” (Faith without works is dead) and purgatory isn’t real, we should all run over to the baptist church and get dunked & saved.

I for one believe God gave us free will to obey or disobey him, and what I do in life is VERY important to when and if I am united with him in Heaven. I am responsible for my actions, and if I screw up and don’t make ammends before I die, I will be held responsible. Purgatory is the best example of His infinite mercy.

Saying works are neccesary for salvation promotes abuse? How about saying “once baptised, always saved” causing faith to die?

Paleo-when you said Luther didn’t split the church, I suppose you’re right. He was simply the first of many, many splinters off the true half. Something about knowing a tree by its fruit…
At least he kept more truth than most.

And Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew-don’t tell me what the translation from the “original” Greek was.

 

[Paleolutheran]

So why should we bother with good works? I suppose since James is “an epistle of straw” (Faith without works is dead) and purgatory isn’t real, we should all run over to the baptist church and get dunked & saved.

I for one believe God gave us free will to obey or disobey him, and what I do in life is VERY important to when and if I am united with him in Heaven. I am responsible for my actions, and if I screw up and don’t make ammends before I die, I will be held responsible. Purgatory is the best example of His infinite mercy.

Saying works are neccesary for salvation promotes abuse? How about saying “once baptised, always saved” causing faith to die?

Paleo-when you said Luther didn’t split the church, I suppose you’re right. He was simply the first of many, many splinters off the true half. Something about knowing a tree by its fruit…
At least he kept more truth than most.

And Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew-don’t tell me what the translation from the “original” Greek was.

Farmer,

You have completely ignored what I said about TRUE faith leading to works. Your mischaracterization of Luther is also troubling. Yes he thought James was an epistle of straw BEFORE he understood how it fit into the context of Romans and the message of Ephesians and Galations. He was also not the “first splinter of many.” Before him were all those heretics in Eastern Orthordoxy who were rightly mad about the Bishop of Rome changing an ecumenical creed by insertion of the filioque without a proper ecumenical council…both excommunicated each other in the Great Schism of 1054. Then there were the Hussites, the leader, Jan Hus was later burned at the stake. Or should we mention the Coptic Christians who until recently denied most of the second ecumenical council and were not in allegiance to Rome or any other Patriarchate of the Orthodox church? Luther wanted to remain in the Roman faith until he ran into opposition that wouldn’t back down from its position and then they excommunicated him…he didn’t WANT that to happen.
He originally wanted us to be called Evangelical Catholics (universal with Christ and His Gospel as the head).

Works being necessary for salvation promotes abuses of legalism. What is to stop the church from saying a six-pence will gain you ten years out of Purgatory and suffering for your own sins when Christ himself used the parable of the widow giving only two pieces of gold showed that outward works are the result of inward faith and are simply the fruits of true faith and repentence. Does that mean she then goes on to suffer for her venial sins in Purgatory? Or perhaps the theif next to Christ who admitted rightly that he was being killed for his crime…let alone his other sins…yet Christ says “TODAY you will be with me in paradise.”

Faith leading to works is by no means when rightly understood to be encouraging antinomianism, instead it allows for accountancy of behavior when used in tandem with private Confession and Holy Absolution. Please understand that I am NOT saying we can go get dunked and not worry about our salvation…we must PERSERVERE in the true faith which the ongoing reception of the blessed Sacraments allow. But when Christ said “it is finished,” regardless of the language, it seems that to only treat that as forgiving some sins rather than all is to actually say “it is started.”

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[devotus]

Consubstantiation is why i an NO longer a lutheran ( one of the main reason anyway)

Christ said This IS my body… NOT This CONTAINS my body…
Thus I am a Catholic today ( and a traditional one at that! )

 

[Paleolutheran]

Consubstantiation is why i an NO longer a lutheran ( one of the main reason anyway)

Christ said This IS my body… NOT This CONTAINS my body…
Thus I am a Catholic today ( and a traditional one at that! )

Devotus,

We do NOT accept Consubstantiation…that would make a combined, singular third substance after consecration, not both together and unaltered. This is based upon St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians where he uses bread/wine and body/blood interchangeably…thus all four elements are together and not interfering with each other after consecration.

What is interesting is how you quote the words of institution where Jesus takes the bread and says, “take eat, this is my body” and the cup saying, “take drink, this is the cup of the New Testament in my blood.” These words don’t seem to indicate that commingling is occurring between the body and blood, which as far as I know the Roman church still teaches. What is the explanation for that???

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren