The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[jessep28]

I didn’t look in the LSB afterwards. I asked a couple friends of mine who go to the earlier Traditional service if that happened to them but have not received a response.

Maybe I’ll ask one of the pastors this week. I don’t necessarily want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t look in the LSB afterwards. I asked a couple friends of mine who go to the earlier Traditional service if that happened to them but have not received a response.

Maybe I’ll ask one of the pastors this week. I don’t necessarily want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

OK. Hey, let me know what you find out. I’d be interested in hearing what your pastor says.

Jon

 

[IAGladfelter]

In many Lutheran congregations, the the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord as the time for a corporate (congregational) renewal of baptismal vows. the Pastors of some of the Lutheran parishes (mostly LCMS) I served as organist would omit the General Confession and Absolution then, simply to keep the service at or under one hour. I suspect that nothing more profound than that was the reason for the omission.

In those days (as recently as 1997) Holy Communion was generally only celebrated on the first Sunday of the Month (or, at most, on the first and third Sundays,) This is changing, but still happens, especially among the more Pietistic (“low church”) congregations. So on a non-communion Sunday, omitting the Confession and Absolution was not that big a deal (as having the service last longer than an hour would be.)

Blessings,
Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

I have a Luthean liturgy question:

Today I went to a later Worship service at my congregation. It was a blended worship format. Instead of the standard corporate Confession and Absolution I’m used to in the traditional format, there was a Rite of Baptismal Renewal.

I understand that the Rite was there because we celebrated Jesus’ baptism today in worship, but is this Rite a valid substitute?

Thank you.

In answer to your last sentence, to most Lutherans, a rite in general is an adiophora (something neither commanded nor forbidden,) so there is no such thing as a valid rite or an invalid one.

Unlike the Catholic church, there is no one authority over Lutheranism, and in the U.S. Lutheranism is congregational in polity except among the smaller, Roman Catholic-oriented Lutheran Churches like mine, a Lutheran bishop (or State / Regional Synod President) has no real authority over congregations which, except in Churches like mine, are generally governed not by clergy, but by their congregation’s (lay) Board of Directors. So, if pressed on the matter, most Lutherans would probably just shrug and maybe look confused.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Missouri Synod Seminaries teach that a seminarian does not come to the seminary with a call to the ministry and may never have a call to the ordained because a call to the ministry comes only from God through the Call Committee of an individual LCMS congregation.

LCMS Seminary faculty (who are the real gatekeepers to ordained ministry in the LCMS) must be convinced that a seminarian, once ordained, will preach and teach in accordance with Holy Scripture (and with the Lutheran Confessions - all of them - “because they are trustworthy witnesses to Scripture.”) Pastors are essentially monitored in this regard by the LCMS Circuit Counselors; and in my experience, most LCMS congregations have laymen who are theologically well educated and astute enough to function as “confessional rottweilers.”

Blessings,
Irl

I agree. In our Sunday Bible Class a few weeks ago, we “got off” on that subject (happens a LOT in our class!). A participant brought up this rather crazy relative who insisted he had a Call to Preach (I recall that exact expression) and the pastor replied as above - that in Lutheranism, we don’t understand “call” as an individual, emotional, inner “revelation” but as an action of God through His people - the church, especially in the formal process of extending and accepting the CALL. That is a “calling” - not some individual, emotional, personal, inner, “feeling.” I rather like that.

.

 

[JonNC]

=AmericanJosiah;6159382]I agree. In our Sunday Bible Class a few weeks ago, we “got off” on that subject (happens a LOT in our class!). A participant brought up this rather crazy relative **who insisted he had a Call to Preach **(I recall that exact expression) and the pastor replied as above - that in Lutheranism, we don’t understand “call” as an individual, emotional, inner “revelation” but as an action of God through His people - the church, especially in the formal process of extending and accepting the CALL. That is a “calling” - not some individual, emotional, personal, inner, “feeling.” I rather like that.

A former pastor of mine called this kind of “call”, “a Bible and an experience”.

Jon

 

[IAGladfelter]

A former pastor of mine called this kind of “call”, “a Bible and an experience”.

Jon

Well Jon, I would hesitate to say unequivocably that such a call is never genuine just as I would hesitate to say unequivocably that the classical (North American) Lutheran understanding of a call coming from an earthly congregation’s call committee is the only call to ordained service.

I would say that it is rather a matter of “both and,” rather than “either or.” Sorting that out takes a lot of time and is the work of the Diocesan Vocations Committee, along with sorting out the nature of the call, whether it is to the secular priesthood, priesthood as a religious - in a religious order, or as a brother (friar or monk) in a religious order (orders have their own vocational discernment process) or in some form of lay apostolate.)

Blessings,
Irl

 

[JonNC]

Well Jon, I would hesitate to say unequivocably that such a call is never genuine just as I would hesitate to say unequivocably that the classical (North American) Lutheran understanding of a call coming from an earthly congregation’s call committee is the only call to ordained service.

I would say that it is rather a matter of “both and,” rather than “either or.” Sorting that out takes a lot of time and is the work of the Diocesan Vocations Committee, along with sorting out the nature of the call, whether it is to the secular priesthood, priesthood as a religious - in a religious order, or as a brother (friar or monk) in a religious order (orders have their own vocational discernment process) or in some form of lay apostolate.)

Blessings,
Irl

You’re right, Irl, and I didn’t mean the comment to sound disrespectful or broad brush. I would say that my dad’s call, and the call of some folks I knew in College, were “both”, as you say.
JOn

 

[SteveVH]

I have a Luthean liturgy question:

Today I went to a later Worship service at my congregation. It was a blended worship format. Instead of the standard corporate Confession and Absolution I’m used to in the traditional format, there was a Rite of Baptismal Renewal.

I understand that the Rite was there because we celebrated Jesus’ baptism today in worship, but is this Rite a valid substitute?

Just a thought from the Catholic perspective. Our litergies are fairly similar. Thought you might be interested to know that on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord we replace our penitential rite (your Confession and Absolution) with a sprinkling rite in which we renew our Baptism with sprinkling of water on the congregation. The sprinkling rite is also done during the entire Easter season.

 

[jessep28]

Just a thought from the Catholic perspective. Our litergies are fairly similar. Thought you might be interested to know that on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord we replace our penitential rite (your Confession and Absolution) with a sprinkling rite in which we renew our Baptism with sprinkling of water on the congregation. The sprinkling rite is also done during the entire Easter season.

After some further research, I found that this is exactly what went on. The liturgy text was pulled from a guide entitled “Creative Worship for Lutherans”, which is why I was unfamiliar with it.

I’m generally a little skeptical of the more contemporary worship styles and to walk in to them piping in modern Christian music over the speakers followed by unfamiliar liturgy spooked me a little…

 

[JonNC]

Just a thought from the Catholic perspective. Our litergies are fairly similar. Thought you might be interested to know that on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord we replace our penitential rite (your Confession and Absolution) with a sprinkling rite in which we renew our Baptism with sprinkling of water on the congregation. The sprinkling rite is also done during the entire Easter season.

Steve,
This must be considered adequate to prepare one to receive the Eucharist, assuming they’ve been to confession in the appropriate time frame and are not in a state of mortal sin. Correct?

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
This must be considered adequate to prepare one to receive the Eucharist, assuming they’ve been to confession in the appropriate time frame and are not in a state of mortal sin. Correct?

That’s a great question. While we acknowledge our sinfullness and ask God’s mercy and forgiveness during the penitential rite, I don’t think it can take the place of the sacrament of Reconciliation. In the case of grave or mortal sin I’m sure it doesn’t. Our Church teaches that our venial (less serious sins) are actually wiped away through reception of the Eucharist and we are not to receive at all if we are in mortal sin until we have received absolution through Reconciliation.

In any event, if you think about Baptism from the respect of removing all prior sin in one’s life, replacing the “Confession and Absolution” with a Baptismal rite would make sense. Being reminded of our Baptism never gets old. It is why we bless ourselves with holy water each time we enter or leave a Church.

Great to hear from you again. God bless.

 

[Catholic2daMax]

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./QUOTE

Assuming that LCMS believe Scripture alone, like other protestants, then how do you come up with the faith without works when many times throughout the Bible people are punished by God when they disobey him. Examples are Adam and Eve and Lot’s wife in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus is dissapointed with the rich man when he does not follow Him, even though he believes in Jesus. He then says that it would be harder for a rich man to enter heaven then for a camel to enter the eye of the needle. Yes the man followed the ten commandments but still Jesus said this was not enough but that he get rid of his possessions. This man believed in Christ but since he would not do enough good works also he might not enter heaven.

 

[Catholic2daMax]

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Lutherans do believe that Christ’s body and blood are present in the Sacrament of the Alter. However, we don’t go as far as believing in transubstantiation.

On the frequency of Communion, in practice it’s really a matter of congregational preference. In most LCMS Lutheran churches, you either see the Eucharist celebrated weekly or bi-weeky. I think the primary argument against having weekly Communion is that it would water down the significance of receiving Christ’s body and blood, which is I think is a garbage argument. In my humble opinion, I think it’s because there is a conception that weekly Communion is a “Roman Catholic thing,” just like making the sign of the cross.

But I am more high church than most. Maybe some more moderate Lutherans can chime in.

So if you don’t believe in transubstantiation how does Jesus come in the form of bread and wine?

 

[jessep28]

So if you don’t believe in transubstantiation how does Jesus come in the form of bread and wine?

The actual mechanism is a mystery beyond anyones comprehension. However, it is present because the Word says so.

 

[IAGladfelter]

So if you don’t believe in transubstantiation how does Jesus come in the form of bread and wine?

I agree with you, and my Church teaches transubstantiation as does the Roman Catholic Church.

In the case of Lutherans, they have a theory which comes close. Though it is sometimes called consubstantiation, it is not that. That is the Eastern Orthodox teaching. Lutherans (officialy) - except for my Church as noted, teach something properly called “Sacramental Union,” in which the Actual Body and Blood of Christ are in fact present as in transubstantiation, but in this case some (how much??) bread and wine remain.

That is a eucharistic theology which was considered to be, well, not heretical. It was still a acceptable as pious opinion in at least some sectors of the Catholic Church after the 4th and 5th Lateran Ecumenical Councils. Catholic Eucharistic theology was not nailed down definitively once and for all until the Council of Trent. So the Lutherans are holding on to a medieval eucharistic theology.

This is art of why the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once described modern Lutherans as “medievally redacted Catholics.”

Incidentally, The Eastern Orthodox still have not definitively nailed down their eucharistic theology - or the number and nature of sacraments either, for that matter.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[JonNC]

=Catholic2daMax;6166155
Assuming that LCMS believe Scripture alone, like other protestants, then how do you come up with the faith without works when many times throughout the Bible people are punished by God when they disobey him. Examples are Adam and Eve and Lot’s wife in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus is dissapointed with the rich man when he does not follow Him, even though he believes in Jesus. He then says that it would be harder for a rich man to enter heaven then for a camel to enter the eye of the needle. Yes the man followed the ten commandments but still Jesus said this was not enough but that he get rid of his possessions. This man believed in Christ but since he would not do enough good works also he might not enter heaven

Well, first, the Lutheran perspective on “scripture alone” is not necessarily the same as other protestants, but be that as it may, why is it harder for a rich man than that camel? It is because wealth, physical possessions and how we value them, can make it difficult for us to maintain our growth in grace. Anything we value more than Him can do that.

Lutherans believe that we are justified by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, and act to do those good works Christ has prepared for us and commanded us to do. These works are not the basis of our salvation, in that they do not add to the merit of Christ and His work in making salvation possible to us.
Does that relieve us from from performing good works? Certainly not! If we have a living, saving faith, we are bound to do good works, out of obedience to Him. The Confessions says:

We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, **this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins. **

Hope that helps,
Jon

 

[Lutheranteach]

I agree with you, and my Church teaches transubstantiation as does the Roman Catholic Church.

In the case of Lutherans, they have a theory which comes close. Though it is sometimes called consubstantiation, it is not that. That is the Eastern Orthodox teaching. Lutherans (officialy) - except for my Church as noted, teach something properly called “Sacramental Union,” in which the Actual Body and Blood of Christ are in fact present as in transubstantiation, but in this case some (how much??) bread and wine remain.

That is a eucharistic theology which was considered to be, well, not heretical. It was still a acceptable as pious opinion in at least some sectors of the Catholic Church after the 4th and 5th Lateran Ecumenical Councils. Catholic Eucharistic theology was not nailed down definitively once and for all until the Council of Trent. So the Lutherans are holding on to a medieval eucharistic theology.

This is art of why the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once described modern Lutherans as “medievally redacted Catholics.”

Incidentally, The Eastern Orthodox still have not definitively nailed down their eucharistic theology - or the number and nature of sacraments either, for that matter.

Blessings,
Irl

Consubstantiation is accepted by some Lutherans (ELCA tends to lean toward it) but to be nitpicky it probably would be better defined as a sacramental union. The words most often applied to the sacrament are: that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. Or, as the Smalcald Articles express this mystery: "Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Assuming that LCMS believe Scripture alone, like other protestants, then how do you come up with the faith without works when many times throughout the Bible people are punished by God when they disobey him. Examples are Adam and Eve and Lot’s wife in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus is dissapointed with the rich man when he does not follow Him, even though he believes in Jesus. He then says that it would be harder for a rich man to enter heaven then for a camel to enter the eye of the needle. Yes the man followed the ten commandments but still Jesus said this was not enough but that he get rid of his possessions. This man believed in Christ but since he would not do enough good works also he might not enter heaven.

Thank you.

IN JUSTIFICATION, Lutherans believe that Jesus is THE Savior, the ONLY Savior, and that I’m not - in any sense - the Savior (in whole or in part, the "jobs’ taken, lol). IN JUSTIFICATION, Christ is the Savior, Grace the reason, and faith is the means by which it is applied to me. Now, while faith in Christ alone applies God’s grace to me, that faith is not some lifeless, stagnat, cognative thing. It is a lively, active, DOING faith. Faith is a verb. Lutherans teach that faith without works is dead - and useless. But,* that said*, it is not MY works that JUSTIFIES me so that Christ is not the Savior but rather I myself.

Secondly, IN DISCIPLESHIP, works is not optional! The Law applies to us - after justification as well. What God commands REMAINS a command. When God said we are to love another another as He first loved us - that MANDATES works of love. That mandate does not disappear simply because we are now friends of God, indeed, a case could be made that applies EVEN MORE to us, as Christians. When we disobey God, there are consequences, aren’t there?

I disagree with your hermeneutics of that Scripture, btw… If we are going to appoint MYSELF as The Savior (making Jesus’ efforts moot and a waste of His life), and I’m going to do what is required (Matthew 5:48, etc.), then we must do ALL God requires, perfectly, from the moment of conception to death. This man was trusting in himself as the Savior. Jesus is helping him examine that self-righteousness. Perhaps it worked.

I hope that helps a bit.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

as the Smalcald Articles express this mystery: "Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.

My Catholic teachers taught me that “consubstantiation” was yet another of the theories invented by the medieval, western, Catholic Scholastics. I forget the name of that man most associated with it…

Although I understand Luther used that term twice in his life, he clearly did not mean it in the sense of Catholic Schlasticism.

As I understand it (and yup, I’m a fairly new convert to Lutheranism), Lutheranism simply embraces Real Presense. Passionately and literally. As I like to put it, in the Eucharistic texts, the meaning of is is is (pardon the grammar, lol). I’ve discovered that Lutherans embrace all this as real, physical, literal - and significant - as do Catholics.

The “difference” is that while Lutherans regard the bread and wine as totally moot to anything at all (CHRIST IS PRESENT - by obsess over that dry waffer or the wine the ladies got on sale, lol?), nor it is dogmatically DENIED. Paul speaks of bread and wine more often AFTER the Consecration than before it. There’s no TEXTUAL or theological reason to “explain away” what the text clearly says with a “half literal/ half symobolic” interpretation (as Zwingli did). But again, all this is simply moot and irrelevant. Who cares about the bread and wine? CHRIST is here! CHRIST is the focus. CHRIST is the object of faith. CHRIST is the blessing and Blesser.

Lutherans simply affirm the miracle, the mystery. Lutherans simply affirm the inscripturated words of God in the text - all of them. Literally. Fully. Lutherans feel no need to tell God HOW He fulfills His promises or grants His blessings. There’s just no need to do that. Lutherans are simply more comfortable with mystery, with leaving things as God does in His Word.

I agree that 'Sacramental Union." As I understand this, it’s NOT dogma but it was a common thought among the Lutheran Fathers. It is the mystery that His Body and Blood are in a “union” (of some nature unknown to us - it’s not necessary that it is known to us) with the bread and wine. Luther’s words in the Small Catechism of “in, with, and under” (which I find odd, btw) are - I think - his way of conveying this to children (the Catechism was written for such). Christ is THERE. And there is some mysterious “connection” of such to bread and wine. This DOES seem to be in conflict with the dogma of Transubstantiation that The Catholic Church would adopt just after Luther’s death - that concerns the word “convert” in the Eucharistic texts (which, of course, doesn’t exist in any of them). Luther’s concern was not to deny or explain away what the texts say, or to impose alchemy or Aristotle’s theory of accidents. I think he simply desired to affirm the REALITY of Christ and His literal, physical, real presence - without saying anything about the bread and wine.

I hope that helps a bit, anyway.

Pax

• Josiah

.