Missouri Synod Lutherans?

  • Thread starter Thread starter glizmo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glizmo

Guest
Hi all! I’ve already learned so much from this site! I was wondering if anyone has any information or advice they can share. I have a Lutheran raised friend who’s currently going through a “reconversion” process and is looking into both the Lutheran and Catholic faith. Her dad (who calls himself a “reformed Catholic”) is currently in a Missouri Synod Lutheran seminary to become a Lutheran pastor. According to her parents, the theology and doctrine of Missouri Synod Lutherans and Catholics is exactly the same except they don’t have the saints and don’t buy people out of Purgatory. Obviously, they are misinformed on the last point, but it made me wonder, what are the main similarities and differences between the two? Does anyone have any references (including websites) that I can provide to my friend to help her make her decision (and come into the True Church)? Thanks!
 
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran I think I may be qualified to answer this. 🙂

The main differences are:

Sola Fide - Faith alone: We are saved by faith in Christ alone - not a faith that is alone. Faith must work to prove itself a true faith.

Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone: If it is not found in scripture explicitly or implicitly then it cannot bind the conscience of a believer.

I think Catholics can agree with the other Solas, Grace Alone and God’s Glory Alone.

Also, regading salvation, Lutheran believe it is completely monergistic that it is all of God.Our faith itself is from him so we play no active role in our salvation. Where as Catholics tend to be synergistic - us cooperating with God for our salvation. This is the real big difference as far as I can tell.

Regarding Sacraments there are three that Chrsit instituted:

Baptism, Absolution and Holy Communion.

Lutherans too believe in Baptismal regeneration and the Real presence of Christ in the the Eucharist, though they do define how He is present it differently. They also have private confession and absolution.

The other differences are obvious. The Pope, Episcopacy, Apostolic Succession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, Purgatory etc.

I hope this is helpful.

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
Lutherans too believe in Baptismal regeneration and the Real presence of Christ in the the Eucharist, though they do define how He is present it differently. They also have private confession and absolution.

The other differences are obvious. The Pope, Episcopacy, Apostolic Succession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, Purgatory etc.

I hope this is helpful.

Mel

Melchior, I have a few questions. Why do Lutherans reject certain books of the Catholic Canon? Also, why do they accept certain books that were established by the Catholic Church in the first place as canonical? Did Martin Luther determine this on his own? I want to be clear that I am not trying to be confrontational, but I am trying to determine on what authority Martin Luther acted?

One of my passions is learning others faith systems. Thanks.🙂
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Melchior, I have a few questions. Why do Lutherans reject certain books of the Catholic Canon? Also, why do they accept certain books that were established by the Catholic Church in the first place as canonical? Did Martin Luther determine this on his own? I want to be clear that I am not trying to be confrontational, but I am trying to determine on what authority Martin Luther acted?

One of my passions is learning others faith systems. Thanks.🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Stylteralmaldo,

I believe the reason Lutherans, and all other Protestants reject the deuterocanonical books as being on the same level as the rest of the Bible is because those books were not universally accepted by all the Church Fathers and neither were they accepted by many Jews as Canonical. In fact the Septuagint did not originally contain the deuterocanonicals and the Church gets it’s Old Testament Canon from the Jews who codified it. So as far as the OT canon goes there was no early concensus among the Jews or the Church as to the level of authority of the deuterocanonicals. To this day the Orthodox include more books that the Catholics do. So the Protestant fathers chose to go with the books of the OT that were never in dispute.

Luther consulted with others and even looked to the early church fathers on this. But to be very clear Luther is not the authority in Lutheranism. It is the Book of Concord which contains the Lutheran confession and teachings. Several men authored this after Luthers death. The Smalcald articles and Luther’s Catehisms are his contribution. But Luther himself is not the authority in Lutheranism on the Canon. The concensus of the church on all undisputed books is what was used to determine the exemption of the deuteros. The name “Lutheran” is misleading because he is only one figure, albeit an important one the formation of Lutheranism. He called the church the Evangelical Catholic Church. Many Lutherans today and through history prefer this term.

As for what authority Luther acted on. Remember he was a Catholic Monk and scholar addressing obvious abuses (particularly by Johann Tetzel regading the sale of indulgences), that most Catholic scholars agree were abuses. He wanted to work for refom within the Church. He did not want schism. But they were poilitcal times and his opponants were not willing to budge and neither was he or his followers. So in his view he merely contined to follow the teachings of the historic Catholic Church as opposed to the medievel Catholic Church and her innovations (his view). Perhaps if there were a dialogue allowed there would have been reform within instead of schism. It was all very sad in my opinion. So he acted on the authority he had as a scholar of the Church. Which he indeed was.

Mel
 
Thanks Mel for your insights. Although I disagree with your faith’s assessments, at least I have a better understanding as to why Lutherans believe as they do.

SPH1: Thanks also for the links. I do like it that whenever links are shown that both sides are adequately represented. I have participated in other discussions that show a link that shows what they think of something without a counterreference with the other side’s perspective.

Mel: Can you verify the link that SPH1 as true as to what the Missouri Synod teaches/believes? Thanks.🙂
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Thanks Mel for your insights. Although I disagree with your faith’s assessments, at least I have a better understanding as to why Lutherans believe as they do.

SPH1: Thanks also for the links. I do like it that whenever links are shown that both sides are adequately represented. I have participated in other discussions that show a link that shows what they think of something without a counterreference with the other side’s perspective.

Mel: Can you verify the link that SPH1 as true as to what the Missouri Synod teaches/believes? Thanks.🙂
Click to expand...
Well I am a new Lutheran, but it is the official website so it must be true. It is also true that I reject it without qualification. Such is my right as I am ultmately not bound (as a Lutheran) by anything other than Scripture and to a lesser degree Luther’s Small Catechism. I think the LCMS is wrong on this. As I think they are wrong on a few other non-essential things. For one our Church Government stinks! However, they are the only conservative, Liturgical Lutheran Denomination in my area.

Mel
 
Thank you everyone for your insights! I myself was raised baptist and had to struggle with many similar issues when coming into the Church, so hopefully I will be able to help my friend out with these differences!

Thanks! 🙂
 
Thank you everyone for your insights! I myself was raised baptist and had to struggle with many similar issues when coming into the Church, so hopefully I will be able to help my friend out with these differences!

Thanks! 🙂
 
I’m a Catholic that converted from being a Missouri-Synod Lutheran.
I think most of the differences were covered. A Lutheran service is similar to a Catholic service to sit through, except Lutherans do not focus on the Eucharist. There is also a distinction (although hard to understand) about how Lutherans view the Eucharist. They believe that Christ is in the substance of the bread of wine while Catholics believe the substance of the bread and wine is Christ completely, only maintaining the appearance of bread and wine.

In my Lutheran church there was a great deal of hatred towards Catholics and a lot of falsehoods were perpetrated as to what Catholics believe. Watch out for that.
Personally, I am happy with my conversion to Catholicism–I feel like I’m home.
 
As a former WELS Lutheran for most of my life, I’d like to comment on the matter also. The WELS denomination is very similar to the MSL.

It’s true that Lutherans harbor a great deal of antipathy to the Catholic Church. My mother is afraid I’m going to hell. I converted to Catholicism 2 years ago and still can’t talk to her about it without her covering her ears. Really.

While growing up, even as a teenager I had a problem with “faith alone”. How could that be sufficient? It seemed like the height of hypocrisy to say all you need to be saved was faith, then commit sin after sin with no regard to spiritual consequences. Where is the faith? Where the love of Christ?

I also had a problem with “scripture alone”. If scripture was all we needed to understand God, why bother with church? Why all the different kinds of churches, each claiming to be Bible based? Who was right?

I also had a problem with the status of women in the church. They were not allowed to vote or hold office, because Paul preached that “women should be silent in church.” When I questioned that, I was told that women did not need to vote because their husband voted for them! What about single women and widows? I guess their voices aren’t heard.

With all that said, the Lutheran church is very “Catholic” in its liturgy and creeds. It was for me a natural evolution to come home to the true Church and find the real roots of faith in the fullness of the Church.
 
Highly recommended:

There We Stood, Here We Stand, 11 Lutherans Rediscover their Catholic Roots, by Timothy Drake, a journalist, whose conversion story is included in his book. Most of the stories are from former members of the Lutheran clergy.

Available for $10 from 1st Books. 1.888.519.5121 (toll free)
 
40.png
LisaH:
As a former WELS Lutheran for most of my life, I’d like to comment on the matter also. The WELS denomination is very similar to the MSL.

It’s true that Lutherans harbor a great deal of antipathy to the Catholic Church. My mother is afraid I’m going to hell. I converted to Catholicism 2 years ago and still can’t talk to her about it without her covering her ears. Really.

While growing up, even as a teenager I had a problem with “faith alone”. How could that be sufficient? It seemed like the height of hypocrisy to say all you need to be saved was faith, then commit sin after sin with no regard to spiritual consequences. Where is the faith? Where the love of Christ?

I also had a problem with “scripture alone”. If scripture was all we needed to understand God, why bother with church? Why all the different kinds of churches, each claiming to be Bible based? Who was right?

I also had a problem with the status of women in the church. They were not allowed to vote or hold office, because Paul preached that “women should be silent in church.” When I questioned that, I was told that women did not need to vote because their husband voted for them! What about single women and widows? I guess their voices aren’t heard.

With all that said, the Lutheran church is very “Catholic” in its liturgy and creeds. It was for me a natural evolution to come home to the true Church and find the real roots of faith in the fullness of the Church.
Click to expand...
Hi Lisa,

I had to respond to this:
While growing up, even as a teenager I had a problem with “faith alone”. How could that be sufficient? It seemed like the height of hypocrisy to say all you need to be saved was faith, then commit sin after sin with no regard to spiritual consequences. Where is the faith? Where the love of Christ?
Click to expand...
By that definition everyone should have a problem with faith alone. But the Lutheran doctrine is far from that. In fact I know of no traditional Protestant Church that believes faith alone means being able to sin all you want with no consequences. Faith alone means one is saved by throwing themselves on the mercy of Christ alone and not trusting in their works, yet striving to do them even if they are imperfect. In other words faith must produce good works or it is a dead faith. As a Lutheran it is acknowledged that I will sin but that Grace is always available when we repent. Forgiveness is offered in confession and in the Eucharist to the penitent. No one believes that an unrepentent sinner is saved by mere intellectual faith. I am sorry that you never understood this. Faith alone has to do with the concern that people will try to save themselves by trusting in there own good works rather than trusting in Christ’s work for them. Faith in Biblical times was understood as complete commitment and devotion to someone or something. In other words faith worked. But it also acknowledges that we will despair of our immortal souls if we trust in our works because we will always sin in this life and always require God’s continuing mercy. Faith alone means the only thing we can offer God for Salvation is trust in His promises to us. Faith entails obedience. But since none of us are always, if ever, perfectly obedient then we must trust in Christ’s merits which is completely outside of us and our works. Isn’t thise why the Catholic Church offers the Sacraments of penance and the Euchrist? Because She knows we will sin and require these means of Grace above all else?

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
…Faith alone means one is saved by throwing themselves on the mercy of Christ alone and not trusting in their works, …In other words faith must produce good works or it is a dead faith. As a Lutheran it is acknowledged that I will sin but that Grace is always available when we repent. Forgiveness is offered in confession and in the Eucharist to the penitent. No one believes that an unrepentent sinner is saved by mere intellectual faith. …Faith alone has to do with the concern that people will try to save themselves by trusting in there own good works rather than trusting in Christ’s work for them…

Mel
Click to expand...
Perhaps Catholics and Lutherans aren’t that far off from unity. We too throw ourselves at the Mercy of Christ. Catholics also agree that faith must produce good works or it is a dead faith. Catholics certainly don’t believe we are saved by works. We believe we are saved by grace - not by works. Your ideas about repenting and forgiveness (confession, eucharist) is similar to Catholic teaching. Hopefully we can bridge the gap of understanding and all become unified in the fullness of Christ’s Church.
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Perhaps Catholics and Lutherans aren’t that far off from unity. We too throw ourselves at the Mercy of Christ. Catholics also agree that faith must produce good works or it is a dead faith. Catholics certainly don’t believe we are saved by works. We believe we are saved by grace - not by works. Your ideas about repenting and forgiveness (confession, eucharist) is similar to Catholic teaching. Hopefully we can bridge the gap of understanding and all become unified in the fullness of Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
40.png
Melchior:
…the Church gets it’s Old Testament Canon from the Jews who codified it. …
Click to expand...
Although I am Reformed, I have always thought this to be a curious argument.

The codification of the Jewish canon happened at the Council of Jamnia. This is the prime evidence cited by Protestants against the deutrocanonicals beacuse the rabbis at this Council rejected some of the books in the Septuagint. The important thing to note, however, is that the Council was held in A.D. 90!

So a few (it was a small council) rabbis rejected some of the books of the Septuagint, SIXTY YEARS AFTER THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED…

…why should we care? These are probably some of the same rabbis who rejected Christ. Why should we care if they rejected some books from their canon? Why should that affect our canon? Especially when the Church was actually in existance at the time of this Council! Christ endowed the Church with his authority at Pentecost. Why do we need to yield that authority to a bunch of rabbis meeting decades later?

If the Council happened in B.C. 90, then I would be willing to consider its decisions. Theologically speaking, however, some very important things changed after A.D. 33 …

-C
 
Calvin, your insights are well taken. A union with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ (Lutheran and other Protestant denominations) likely won’t happen until they realize that the books they reject are indeed canonical.

The reformation should have been about reforming people, not reforming doctrine.
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Calvin, your insights are well taken. A union with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ (Lutheran and other Protestant denominations) likely won’t happen until they realize that the books they reject are indeed canonical.

The reformation should have been about reforming people, not reforming doctrine.
Click to expand...
This is true.

I usually refer to myself as “Reformed” rather than “Protestant” in the spirit of the early Reformers who did not want/see themselves as leaving the Church. I also usually refer to local Protestant bodies as “congregations” and not “churches,” again, in the spirit of the early Reformers who did not intend to form new (small-c) churches. Of course that didn’t last very long…

The Reformation was a tragic event. I don’t think most Protestants understand how terrible it truly was and how much we owe to our Mother, the Catholic Church.

I used to tell a little joke about growing up in the Evangelical Free Church of America: “In the Sunday School I learned that the Church of Jesus Christ was founded in Minnesota in the 1950s and from there it has spread rapidly throughout the whole world.” It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

-C
 
40.png
Calvin:
Although I am Reformed, I have always thought this to be a curious argument.

The codification of the Jewish canon happened at the Council of Jamnia. This is the prime evidence cited by Protestants against the deutrocanonicals beacuse the rabbis at this Council rejected some of the books in the Septuagint. The important thing to note, however, is that the Council was held in A.D. 90!

So a few (it was a small council) rabbis rejected some of the books of the Septuagint, SIXTY YEARS AFTER THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED…

…why should we care? These are probably some of the same rabbis who rejected Christ. Why should we care if they rejected some books from their canon? Why should that affect our canon? Especially when the Church was actually in existance at the time of this Council! Christ endowed the Church with his authority at Pentecost. Why do we need to yield that authority to a bunch of rabbis meeting decades later?

If the Council happened in B.C. 90, then I would be willing to consider its decisions. Theologically speaking, however, some very important things changed after A.D. 33 …

-C
Click to expand...
Hi Calvin,

That is a good point. However, considering that the Septuagint that these particular Jews put together is what is accepted by all three branches of Christendom in one form or another is significant. The Septuagint is the actual authoritative version of the OT to the Orthodox Church. So in some sense the authority vested in it by Christians must be weighed in the balance when discussions of the Deuterocanonicals take place. For the record I think there is much benefit to reading the deutero’s. We Protestants should benefit from them. If we can read half the pop-Evangelical **** out there we should spend at least that much time of ancient Hebrew texts of a godly nature.

BTW, I am Lutheran but have been Presbyterian for alot longer. I still believe in covenant theology as the best way to view matters of faith, family and scripture. So I am sort of Luthereformed.

Mel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top