The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[CHESTERTONRULES]

GCK,

I’ll jump in with an answer from the perspective of an ELCA pastor.

The three major Lutheran groups in the United States are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS), and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). In addition, there are 15-20 smaller Lutheran groups.

All Lutherans subscribe to the Augsburg Confession and to the other documents contained in the Book of Concord (including the three ecumenical creeds).

Many would classify the ELCA as “liberal,” the LC-MS as “conservative,” and the WELS as “ultra-conservative.” Most of the smaller groups fall somewhere in the “conservative” to “ultra-conservative” spectrum. However these labels are not always helpful in understanding what different Lutherans believe and practice.

For example, apart from the ELCA most Lutherans practice closed communion and do not ordain women. In this way, their ecclesiology is much like that of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the conservative Lutherans are more likely to be anti-Catholic in their teachings. The ELCA, in contrast, seeks good relations with the Catholic Church.

If you would like more information about the different Lutheran churches, you can find short summaries here:

pastorzip.org/uslutheranlinx.html

I hope this helps a little.

Very much. Thank you!

 

[spoiltvictorian]

From the little research and from responses sound like it went over well. Did they at least appendix the Small Catechism?

Yes, it’s in the forward pages of the Bible.

 

[revrr]

Hope you don’t mind if I also answer. The teaching of Lutherans is different in that we believe that the Body and Blood are “in, with and under” the bread and wine. So four substances, bread, Body, wine and Blood, are all present at Communion. It is also different in that we believe the Body and Blood of Christ cease to be present after Communion whereas Catholics believe the change is permanent.

This is a good point, but just to clarify:

The Eucharist is a tricky animal in general, and so also in the Lutheran Church.

I think when Lutherans and Catholics talk about this issue, they look for ways to be different. When they do, they end up falling, inadvertently, into saying incorrect statements regarding the Eucharist.

To put it simply, Lutherans are committed to the idea that Christ offers His very Body and Blood for eating and drinking in the Sacrament. At the same time, however, we acknowledge that Scripture does not stop referring to this meal as a meal of bread and wine. The proclamation remains “Body and Blood” and not “Body, Blood, Bread and wine.” The Small Catechism’s description of “in, with and under” is only one side of the coin, and not a complete explanation of what we refer to as the “Sacramental Union.”

Lutherans believe that there is a Sacramental Union that takes place in the Eucharist. Without the Latin, this would simply be Mysterious or Mystical Union, and in that way, it would sound very similar to an Eastern view of the same. We refrain from using the Aristotelean explanation of the Sacrament, using accident and substance, that was made popular by Thomas Aquinas.

Although, this might be too novel for a forum like this, the Lutheran position on the Lord’s Supper can be compared, in a way, to St. Cyril’s position on Christology. You might say that, historically, a confused Christology mitigates a confused understanding of the Eucharist (cf. Ireanaus, Letter to the Smyrnaeans). If we grant this way of speaking about the mystery of the Sacrament, consubstantiation would be like a Nestorian view, while transubstantiation might be likened to an Apollinarian view.

Lutherans do not believe in a “temporary presence” of Christ, but we do believe that the presence of Christ is only guaranteed in the entire Sacramental action. It’s more about obedience to Christ’s institution than about the locality of Christ’s presence. For that reason, as a confession of faith in favor of Christ’s institution, a confessional Lutheran should refrain from a Corpus Christi parade, Eucharistic adoration, or a regular use of a tabernacle. …not because Christ has left the building, but because Christ said, “Take, eat.” Lutherans will often take care to dispose of the elements of communion in a reverent way. Many believe that the “most reverent” way of disposal is to simply consume all of the elements.

 

[JonNC]

GCK,

I’ll jump in with an answer from the perspective of an ELCA pastor.

The three major Lutheran groups in the United States are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS), and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). In addition, there are 15-20 smaller Lutheran groups.

All Lutherans subscribe to the Augsburg Confession and to the other documents contained in the Book of Concord (including the three ecumenical creeds).

Many would classify the ELCA as “liberal,” the LC-MS as “conservative,” and the WELS as “ultra-conservative.” Most of the smaller groups fall somewhere in the “conservative” to “ultra-conservative” spectrum. However these labels are not always helpful in understanding what different Lutherans believe and practice.

For example, apart from the ELCA most Lutherans practice closed communion and do not ordain women. In this way, their ecclesiology is much like that of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the conservative Lutherans are more likely to be anti-Catholic in their teachings. The ELCA, in contrast, seeks good relations with the Catholic Church.
If you would like more information about the different Lutheran churches, you can find short summaries here:

pastorzip.org/uslutheranlinx.html

I hope this helps a little.

Pastor Gary makes an excellent point here in the part I bolded, and a difficult one for a Lutheran such as myself. In addition to the decidedly (and unfortunately) congregational polity of the LCMS, my greatest concern is our reluctance to dialogue in a positve way, such as that of the ELCA here in the U.S., and the LWF on a broader scale. By not agressively dialoguing with Rome, I believe we compromise our claim as a Reformation Church, and become merely Protestant.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is a good point, but just to clarify:

The Eucharist is a tricky animal in general, and so also in the Lutheran Church.

I think when Lutherans and Catholics talk about this issue, they look for ways to be different. When they do, they end up falling, inadvertently, into saying incorrect statements regarding the Eucharist.

To put it simply, Lutherans are committed to the idea that Christ offers His very Body and Blood for eating and drinking in the Sacrament. At the same time, however, we acknowledge that Scripture does not stop referring to this meal as a meal of bread and wine. The proclamation remains “Body and Blood” and not “Body, Blood, Bread and wine.” The Small Catechism’s description of “in, with and under” is only one side of the coin, and not a complete explanation of what we refer to as the “Sacramental Union.”

Lutherans believe that there is a Sacramental Union that takes place in the Eucharist. Without the Latin, this would simply be Mysterious or Mystical Union, and in that way, it would sound very similar to an Eastern view of the same. We refrain from using the Aristotelean explanation of the Sacrament, using accident and substance, that was made popular by Thomas Aquinas.

Although, this might be too novel for a forum like this, the Lutheran position on the Lord’s Supper can be compared, in a way, to St. Cyril’s position on Christology. You might say that, historically, a confused Christology mitigates a confused understanding of the Eucharist (cf. Ireanaus, Letter to the Smyrnaeans). If we grant this way of speaking about the mystery of the Sacrament, consubstantiation would be like a Nestorian view, while transubstantiation might be likened to an Apollinarian view.

Lutherans do not believe in a “temporary presence” of Christ, but we do believe that the presence of Christ is only guaranteed in the entire Sacramental action. It’s more about obedience to Christ’s institution than about the locality of Christ’s presence. For that reason, as a confession of faith in favor of Christ’s institution, a confessional Lutheran should refrain from a Corpus Christi parade, Eucharistic adoration, or a regular use of a tabernacle. …not because Christ has left the building, but because Christ said, “Take, eat.” Lutherans will often take care to dispose of the elements of communion in a reverent way. Many believe that the “most reverent” way of disposal is to simply consume all of the elements.

This is well said. I might add about Eucharistic adoration, that Lutherans do (or can) practice it within the Sacramental Action, and also that Luther himself did not, to my understanding, condemn the practice outside of it (though he did the Corpus Christi processions).

Jon

 

[Monty_Arch]

…Luther didn’t add or subtract anything from scripture; his teaching simply clarifies and organizes what the Lord has already given us in the scriptures.

Martin Luther took out Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther took out Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

If one looks at Luther’s translation, completed in 1534, one will find all of these D-C books. He translated all 73 books and included them all. He left out none of the books typically found in Western Bibles of his time, though he did list the D-C’s separately between the OT and NT.
Luther certainly held the view, shared by some in his time and preceding, that they were not of the same level as canon, but were good for reading and study.

The exclusion of the D-C books from Protestant Bibles happened later, long after Luther’s death.

Jon

 

[revrr]

If one looks at Luther’s translation, completed in 1534, one will find all of these D-C books. He translated all 73 books and included them all. He left out none of the books typically found in Western Bibles of his time, though he did list the D-C’s separately between the OT and NT.
Luther certainly held the view, shared by some in his time and preceding, that they were not of the same level as canon, but were good for reading and study.

The exclusion of the D-C books from Protestant Bibles happened later, long after Luther’s death.

Jon

Thanks, Jon.

This is one of the most common misconceptions of the Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church does not operate with any canon other than the ancient canon of the Church. “Ancient” means that we do not believe that we need to accept the new canon from the Council of Trent. To get technical, the only change that took place in the canon in 16th century was that the RCC “changed the Bible” at Trent.

Luther did not remove books of the Bible. The English missionary societies of the 19th century did. In short, publishers, not theologians, created the so-called “Protestant” and “Catholic” bibles.

Here is a good link for resources the canon:

bible-researcher.com/canon.html

This particular branch is helpful:

bible-researcher.com/canon3.html

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Nominefili, Thanks for the warm welcome and your concern for those in the ELCA. At this time we need all the prayers we can get. I did a quiz some months ago that was supposed to help people find the best denominational fit. My top three were ELCA (big surprise), Episcopal, and Missouri Synod. In the light of the social statement and the resolutions, the Episcopal Church would be out. Though I know the local LCMS pastor and some of the members, there are ecclesiological and theological reasons I would not be a good fit. The main one is close communion. Second is the question of Biblical inerrancy. This is not to say it would totally keep me out, I certainly would be glad to drive by the four Baptist churches between my house and the LCMS church, to worship, but actually putting my name on the church role would mean me giving a tacit approval and willingness to bind myself to positions I could not in conscience support. It is better that I remain in the ELCA and act as loyal opposition.

I think most ELCA women would have problems with the role of women in LCMS and especially in WELS. They are too used to full participation in the life of the church. I have in mind one of our very active members who left the Baptist church when a new pastor told her she could not even help in preparing communion (yes, Baptists do celebrate it, but in my experience, they aren’t too good at it). I cannot imagine that she would be willing to put herself back in that situation.

Do not consider this a rejection of your kind offer of fellowship. It is more a rumination on the practical aspects of healing the divides in the churches of the Augsburg Confession (Luther’s preferred name for the churches that are called Lutheran).

I thank you again for your warm welcome and for your concern.

God bless.

 

[PJM]

=Nominefili;5828883]I have noticed a trend on the forums - people do not seem to understand what Lutherans believe. So I wanted to make a thread to consolidate any questions or comments you might have about Lutheranism. It could be about our doctrine, our history, the differences between our Synods, what to expect in a Lutheran liturgy, etc. Anything you can think of! I (and I’m sure my fellow Lutherans) would be happy to explain our beliefs and teach about our faith.

**THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! **That friend is truly a Christian jesture:thumbsup:

I have several TOPICAL questions which, God willing I shall ask one at a time.

**Topic One: **The Bible

What is your understanding of the inerriancy of the Bible?

In the light of 2 Tim/ 3:16; what bible version do you use and why?

Who “may” or rightfully “can” interpet the Bible and on what evidence?

Love and prayers friend,
Pat

 

[Nominefili]

**THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! **That friend is truly a Christian jesture:thumbsup:

I have several TOPICAL questions which, God willing I shall ask one at a time.

**Topic One: **The Bible

What is your understanding of the inerriancy of the Bible?

The passage from 2 Timothy is the primary source of our belief in Scriptural Inerrancy. However, it is important to note that not all Lutheran synods hold to that doctrine. Here is my Synod’s statement on Scriptural innerancy:

The Purpose of Scripture

We believe that all Scripture bears witness to Jesus Christ and that its primary purpose is to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.We therefore affirm that the Scriptures are rightly used only when they are read from the perspective of justification by faith and the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Since the saving work of Jesus Christ was accomplished through His personal entrance into our history and His genuinely historical life, death and resurrection, we acknowledge that the recognition of the soteriological purpose of Scripture in no sense permits us to call into question or deny the historicity or factuality of matters recorded in the Bible. We therefore reject the following views:
. That knowing the facts and data presented in the Scripture,without relating them to Jesus Christ and His work of salvation, represents an adequate approach to Holy Scripture.
. That the Old Testament, read on its own terms, does not bear witness to Jesus Christ.
. That it is permissible to reject the historicity of events or the occurrence of miracles recorded in the Scriptures so long as there is no confusion of Law and Gospel.
. That recognition of the primary purpose of Scripture makes it irrelevant whether such questions of fact as the following are answered in the affirmative:Were Adam and Eve real historical individuals? Did Israel cross the Red Sea on dry land? Did the brazen serpent miracle actually take place? Was Jesus really born of a virgin? Did Jesus perform all the miracles attributed to Him? Did Jesus’ resurrection actually involve the return to life of His dead body?

The Gospel and Holy Scripture (Material and Formal Principles)

We believe, teach and confess that the Gospel of the gracious justification of the sinner through faith in Jesus Christ is not only the chief doctrine of Holy Scripture and a basic presupposition for the interpretation of Scripture, but is the heart and center of our Christian faith and theology (material principle). We also believe, teach, and confess that only “the Word of God shall establish articles of faith” (SA, II, ii, ), and that “the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged” (FC, Ep,Rule and Norm, ) (formal principle). The Gospel,which is the center of our theology, is the Gospel to which the Scriptures bear witness, while the Scriptures from which we derive our theology direct us steadfastly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We reject the following distortions of the relationship between the Gospel and the Bible (the material and formal principles):

. That acceptance of the Bible as such, rather than the Gospel, is the heart and center of Christian faith and theology, and the way to eternal salvation.
. That the Gospel, rather than Scripture, is the norm for appraising and judging all doctrines and teachers (as, for example, when a decision on the permissibility of ordaining women into the pastoral office is made on the basis of the “Gospel” rather than on the teaching of Scripture as such).
. That the historicity or facticity of certain Biblical accounts (such as the Flood or the Fall) may be questioned, provided this does not distort the gospel.
. That Christians need not accept matters taught in the Scriptures that are not a part of the “Gospel.”

The Authority of Scripture

We believe, teach and confess that because the Scriptures have God as their author, they possess both the divine power to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (causative authority), as well as the divine authority to serve as the church’s sole standard of doctrine and life (normative authority).We recognize that the authority of Scripture can be accepted only through faith and not merely by rational demonstration. As men of faith, we affirm not only that Holy Scripture is powerful and efficacious, but also that it is “the only judge, rule, and norm according to which, as the only touchstone, all doctrines should and must be understood, and judged as good or evil, right or wrong.” (FC,
Ep, Rule and Norm, ) We therefore reject the following views:

. That the authority of Scripture is limited to its efficacy in bringing men to salvation in Jesus Christ.
. That the authority of Scripture has reference only to what the Scriptures do (as means of grace) rather than to what they are (as the inspired Word of God).
. That the Scriptures are authoritative for the doctrine and life of the church, not because of their character as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, but because they are the oldest available written sources for the history of ancient Israel and for the life and message of Jesus Christ, or because they were written by the chosen and appointed leaders of Israel and of the early church, or because the church declared them to be canonical.
. That the Christian community in every age is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore free to go beyond the doctrine of the prophets and apostles in determining the content of certain aspects of its faith and witness.

I know that was long, but even that isn’t exhaustive. Here is the link to the full statement:

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/astatement.pdf

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Thanks, Jon.

This is one of the most common misconceptions of the Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church does not operate with any canon other than the ancient canon of the Church. “Ancient” means that we do not believe that we need to accept the new canon from the Council of Trent. To get technical, the only change that took place in the canon in 16th century was that the RCC “changed the Bible” at Trent.

I’m afraid that’s not quite historically accurate.

The canon at the Council of Trent wasn’t changed. All that happened was that the Church ratified - i.e. made official - what had been in use since the regional councils in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Now back to the regularly scheduled Lutheran discussion.

Love is Patient

 

[PJM]

=Nominefili;]The passage from 2 Timothy is the primary source of our belief in Scriptural Inerrancy. However, it is important to note that not all Lutheran synods hold to that doctrine. Here is my Synod’s statement on Scriptural innerancy:

I know that was long, but even that isn’t exhaustive. Here is the link to the full statement:

lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/astatement.pdf

Dear friend in our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

I found your response to my inquiry on your understanding to be fascinating and well articulated.** Thank you so very much!**

Your response however leads me to a few additional points of clarification, stemming largely from the fact that the Founder of your religious beliefs, Martin Luther was at the pinnacle of decision making on your Doctrine and Philosophy.

Understand friend that the issues I raise are NOT intended to be argumentative, or accusatory. Rather I have for a long time struggled to understand some of the Protestant, and especially Lutheran positions. Your willingness to discuss the issues seems to afford me the opportunity to gain further and greater understanding, for which I am exceedingly grateful.

**My First point **of clarification has to do with “different Synods” holding different views. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God [always true, but not necessarily factual] how can there be divergent opinions?

Second: If indeed the Bible “is the Inspired Word of God” as your response suggest.

Why would the Gospels have greater importance than the balance of the NT - Bible? It would seem that either the entire Bible is Inspired or none of it is Inspired?

Third: What is the scriptural Gospel references for your position of “Justification * by Faith”?

Four: If the Bible is “The Inspired Word of God?” on what basis did Luther, Knox, Calvin have for removing seven entire books from the [then about 1500 year old Bible] as well as making numerous text changes? Logic dictates that the ENTIRE Bible either was always and continues to Inspired and TRUE, or it’s not?

The passage from 2 Timothy is the primary source of our belief in Scriptural Inerrancy. However, it is important to note that not all Lutheran synods hold to that doctrine. Here is My [Lutheran] Synod’s statement on Scriptural inerrancy:

The Gospel and Holy Scripture (Material and Formal Principles)

We also believe, teach, and confess that only “the Word of God shall establish articles of faith”, and that “the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged”

Second point of clarification

(

FC, Ep ,Rule and Norm, ) (formal principle). We also believe, teach, and confess that only “the Word of God shall establish articles of faith”

From the Gospel of John, Ch. 21: verse 25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” **Which clearly states that NOT everything is to be found in the Bible. **

We believe, teach and confess that because the Scriptures

have God as their author, they possess both the divine power to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (causative authority), as well as the divine authority to serve as the church’s sole standard of doctrine and life (normative authority).

1Cor.11 [2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2Thes.2 [15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thes.3 [6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Friend it is my sincere hope that along with my questions you will find in this post a Biblical Foundation for there birth?

Thank you so much for your time and impute.

Love and prayers,

Pat*

 

[Nominefili]

**My First point **of clarification has to do with “different Synods” holding different views. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God [always true, but not necessarily factual] how can there be divergent opinions?

This is because not all churches who grew out of the Reformation believe in Scriptural Inerrancy as a doctrine. I find it somewhat ironic, considering the fact that the sola scriptura was the primary catalyst for the Reformation to begin with. If a church doesn’t accept that or the Lutheran Confesssions as they were originally intended, there is no reason for them to remain Lutheran. But that isn’t really for me to judge.

A ‘synod’ in its traditional understanding is a collection of independent congregations to organize and regulate those congregations and allow for some level of consistency in doctrine and practice. However, in each of the American Lutheran synods, the congregation holds about 90% of the power in making such decisions. Often the only recourse is for the synod to remove a congregation, leading to various splits upon theological lines.

Second: If indeed the Bible “is the Inspired Word of God” as your response suggest.

Why would the Gospels have greater importance than the balance of the NT - Bible? It would seem that either the entire Bible is Inspired or none of it is Inspired?

I don’t really understand the question. I don’t remember ever stating that the Gospels were more important than the Epistles. However, I will say that I personally view the direct, firsthand accounts of our Lord’s birth, ministry, suffering, death, and resurrection, to have no equal or parallel among scripture. It is this which a man must believe to inherit eternal life.

Third: What is the scriptural Gospel references for your position of “Justification * by Faith”?*

Luke 17:19 - “Your faith has made you well.”
Matthew 8:

5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
7Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

 

[jessep28]

I know that this is a LCMS Lutheran to LCMS Lutheran question, but what do some of you feel about the contemporizing of worship at many LCMS congregations?

 

[JonNC]

I know that this is a LCMS Lutheran to LCMS Lutheran question, but what do some of you feel about the contemporizing of worship at many LCMS congregations?

I don’t like it a bit, but if there is Invocation, Confession and Absolution, reading of the Word,* proper* administration of the sacraments, then it can be done (and the Confessions say so). But in the end, we are not American evangelical Protestants, we are Lutheran (evangelical Catholic), and I’d prefer we worship like it.

We have some of the most beautiful liturgical music of any communion, why would we give that up for a praise band? :hypno:

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

We have some of the most beautiful liturgical music of any communion, why would we give that up for a praise band? :hypno:

Jon

Jon, all I can say is a loud AMEN!!! :clapping:

 

[Nominefili]

I know that this is a LCMS Lutheran to LCMS Lutheran question, but what do some of you feel about the contemporizing of worship at many LCMS congregations?

As a future pastor myself, I’ve adopted this attitude: If the congregation wants it, and the music is theologically sound (assuming I’ve checked over the music beforehand) I have no problem with more modern music. It’s not necessarily my preference but it’s also not something I would want to drive people out of the church over.

 

[jessep28]

I don’t like it a bit, but if there is Invocation, Confession and Absolution, reading of the Word,* proper* administration of the sacraments, then it can be done (and the Confessions say so). But in the end, we are not American evangelical Protestants, we are Lutheran (evangelical Catholic), and I’d prefer we worship like it.

We have some of the most beautiful liturgical music of any communion, why would we give that up for a praise band? :hypno:

Jon

I agree with that point. You have to allow some freedom in music, especially when you start venturing into say Asia or Africa where the culture may or may not accept the Western European music that you see in traditional Confessional Lutheran churches.

I guess my issue isn’t so much with the music as the shift there seems to be in many larger LCMS congregations to emulate a nondenominational model. LakePointe “Lutheran” Church in Arkansas which was featured in a recent edition of the Lutheran Witness is a good example. Maybe I’m being nitpicky but looking at their website, something seems fishy: lakepointefamily.com/ . You are also seeing LCMS churches joining the Willow Creek Association, which concerns me since they are associated with Willow Creek Church which is not theologically in tune with the Lutheran Church.

I’m not saying that we need to have a uniform worship style in the ancient Western tradition similar to Roman Catholics. However, Lutheran churches need to be very careful when modernizing their worship programs.

 

[James1982]

I don’t like it a bit, but if there is Invocation, Confession and Absolution, reading of the Word,* proper* administration of the sacraments, then it can be done (and the Confessions say so). But in the end, we are not American evangelical Protestants, we are Lutheran (evangelical Catholic), and I’d prefer we worship like it.

We have some of the most beautiful liturgical music of any communion, why would we give that up for a praise band? :hypno:

Jon

This is slowly becoming an issue in WELS as well.

A google search for “church growth movement” will reveal the pitfalls inherent in the approach.