The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[Nyarlathotep]

ingmarbergman.se/page.asp?guid=3F8B747C-A2B0-44D3-BADF-CA91404FAB50&LanCD=EN

…Bergman describes the ending of the film as the “stirrings of a new faith”. He finds this a difficult section to write. Yet in a conversation with Sjöman he feels he has found a solution:

“Have you ever heard of ‘duplication’? On certain Sundays the parson has to hold two services: one in the main parish and then one in the chapelry, the sub-parish in the next district. Now it is custom in the Swedish church that if there are no more than three persons in the congregation, no service need be held. What I do is this: when Björnstrand comes to the district church, the church-warden comes up to him and says: ‘There’s only one churchgoer here.’ Yet the parson holds the service all the same. That’s all that is needed to indicate the new faith that is stirring inside the parson.”

Later, in The Magic Lantern, Bergman recalls the ending as having come to him during a visit to a church in the company of his elderly father:

"It was an early spring day with mist and bright light reflecting off the surrounding snow. We arrived in plenty of time at the little church north of Uppsala to find four churchgoers ahead of us waiting in the narrow pews. The churchwarden and the sexton were whispering on the porch while a female organist was rummaging in the organ loft. Even after the summoning bell had faded away over the plain, the pastor still had not appeared. A long silence ensued in heaven and on earth. Father shifted uneasily in his seat and muttered to himself and me. A few minutes later we heard the sound of a car speeding across the slippery ground outside; a door slammed, and after a minute the pastor cam puffing down the aisle.

When he got to the altar rail, he turned around and looked at his congregation with red-rimmed eyes. He was a thin, long-haired man, his trimmed beard scarcely covering his receding chin. He swung his arms like a skier and coughed, the hair on the crown of his head curly, and his forehead turning red. ‘I am sick,’ said the pastor. ‘I have a high fever and a chill.’ He sought sympathy in our eyes. 'I have permission to give you a short service; there will be no communion. I’ll preach as best as I can, then we’ll sing a hymn and that will have to do. ‘I’ll just go into the sacristy and put on my cassock.’ He bowed and for a few moments stood irresolutely as if waiting for applause or at least some sign of approval, but when no one reacted, he disappeared through a heavy door.

Father rose from his seat in the pew. He was upset. ‘I must speak to that man. Let me pass.’ He got out of the pew and limped into the sacristy, leaning heavily on his stick. A short and agitated conversation followed.

A few minutes later, the churchwarden appeared. He smiled with embarrassment and explained that there would be a communion service after all, and an older colleague would assist the pastor.

The introductory hymn was sung by the organist and us few churchgoers. At the end of the second verse, Father came in, in white vestments, with his stick. When the hymn was over, he turned to us and spoke in his calm free voice, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of thy glory. Glory be to thee, O Lord most High.’

Thus it was that I discovered the ending to Winter Light and a rule I was to follow from then on: irrespective of everything that happens to you in life, you hold your communion."

 

[Lutheranteach]

Facts are facts. Martin Luther did use unnecessary “earthy” language.

He also was very anti-Semitic and believed the pope was the anti-Christ. Luther wasn’t a saint, that’s for sure.

As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.

Anti-semitic, yes and the man does not get a free pass on that with me. As for the anti-christ comments, I like to think that one does not call those who have put a death sentence on your head the nicest of names. Luther’s greatest talent was his ability to communicate with the common man. He knew the #1 rule of communication. KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE, and he mastered it.

 

[Deacon_Latif]

Facts are facts. Martin Luther did use unnecessary “earthy” language.

He also was very anti-Semitic and believed the pope was the anti-Christ. Luther wasn’t a saint, that’s for sure.

As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.

Dear Philena:

It is true that facts are facts. However, some of your facts are not facts. And some of them are irrelevant, and you infer too much from them. For some reason you are throwing a lot of different stuff in here. Is this like your general down on Luther day? But I will take them one by one.

I already admitted in my last comment that Luther used earthy language. But you say that as though it were necessarily or always a bad or evil thing. That is not the case. As I said, good writers, good speaker, good preachers, will use the language to paint pictures, for the sake of the point they are making. There are times and places for things, but language is not inherently evil. Nor ought we judge Luther, or many of his Roman opponents either, by the way, for using language in a way that would at times offend our post victorian sensibilities.

Luther was not antisemitic. Dissertations, and books have been written, showing that this caricature is simply unfair. I’m glad to explore this further with you, when I have time.

I do not know how much you know about the popes of Luther’s lifetime, such as Pope Paul III, or Pope Leo X, but Luther’s repulsion of the corruption of the Roman See was shared by Erasmus, and many who remained within the Roman Church. Many of them the papacy ended up championing merely because they agreed to oppose Luther. Do you have any idea how easy it was in those days to get a cardinal’s hat? They even offered Luther one, if only he would stop his theological attacks on Rome. My point here is not to inflame my Catholic friends, but to point out that the sixteenth century was a very, very different time.

Next, you say that Luther was not a saint. You and I will disagree for now on Luther’s holiness. Just know that there are people who differ with you on that, even educated people. Your position on that is not as “for sure” as some might think.

Finally, you speak of “Lutherans” and “they,” but this Lutheran, and there are many like me, are quite upfront about my loyalty to the Lutheran Confessions. Sola Scriptura is a term which is virtually meaningless, unless both parties in a discussion clearly define their terms. I certainly do not subscribe to sola scriptura, at least not as it is usually conceived in today’s religious milieu, and neither does Luther.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What do you do with the vestiges of the blood in the cups? Do you just throw them away?

Anybody have an answer to this?

 

[Deacon_Latif]

Anybody have an answer to this?

We would not use such things at my church, nor would I drink from them when visiting another church. But among those who do practice the use of the little cups, some treat the reliquiae more reverently than others do. I suppose they could be soaked in water, and then drunk in the sacristy after mass. But of course the traditional Lutheran practice is far, far better, namely, to use the chalice, and purify it after the Communion.

 

[IowaJay]

As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.

Just as many non-Catholics have the wrong impression that Catholics worship saints and statues, many non-Lutherans have the wrong impression as to what Lutherans mean by “Sola Scriptura.” Lutherans do not believe in the same version of Sola Scriptura that you are probably thinking of, where “Bible alone” means all tradition is chucked out the window. Lutherans have never believed that, going all the way back to Martin Luther, who was highly critical of the “radical reformers” such as Karlstadt who destroyed statues, etc.

To Lutherans, “Sola Scriptura” means that Scripture is the “norm which norms other norms.” Other norms, such as the Creeds, Confessions, etc. are not thrown out - we believe in the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds - because we acknowledge they were shaped by and conform to Scripture. So Lutherans are up front about it and acknowledge our reliance on other traditions - its just that many, both Lutheran and non-Lutheran, don’t really understand what we mean by “Sola Scriptura.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

We would not use such things at my church, nor would I drink from them when visiting another church. But among those who do practice the use of the little cups, some treat the reliquiae more reverently than others do. I suppose they could be soaked in water, and then drunk in the sacristy after mass. But of course the traditional Lutheran practice is far, far better, namely, to use the chalice, and purify it after the Communion.

Thank you.

Anybody whose church uses paper cups or multiple cups, how do you purify them?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Dear AmericanJosiah:

If you don’t mind, I’d like to jump into the conversation here, and as respectfully as I can, take issue with your view of the matter. The Lutheran position on the Eucharist is often defined by many to be that the Body and Blood of our Lord is “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. This is not entirely false, but not an entirely sufficient description of Lutheran teaching either. Unfortunately, for example, it leads many to inaccurately conclude that Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation, which is not Lutheran at all. Rather, the most Lutheran way of characterizing our belief in the Real Presence in a concise manner is by saying that we believe in the Sacramental Union. It is not true that this terminology or concept is not well defined. It is in some ways analogous to the Personal Union of the two natures in Christ, two natures united in such a way that they are distinct, yet inseparable. We do not believe that it is necessary for the substance of bread and wine to be annihilated, as Transubstantiation teaches. We simply take our Lord’s all powerful Words seriously, when He says, “This is My Body,” etc, and we do not feel the need for Aristotle to help. Human philosophy, as helpful as it may seem, sometimes just overcomplicates things.

I don’t disagree; however my discussion was PURELY within the context and to the issue of whether His presence continues AFTER the Sacramental action is concluded. THAT was the only application of that teaching I was/am referring.

However, neither the Roman nor the Lutheran doctrine puts a time limit on our Lord’s presence. Saint Augustine said, “Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.” This is quoted by Luther in the Large Catechism, and nicely sums up the fact that it is the union of the Word with the element that makes for a sacrament. After that union has taken place, no one has the authority to say that at some point that consecrated host is no longer the Body of Christ.

… my point exactly. As I posted, this is not a matter of doctrine for Lutherans.

BUT, I was sharing what I have gathered in a common OPINION among Lutherans - one I specifically stated I’m not sure I concur with. Namely, that the union is SACRAMENTAL in nature, so that when the Sacrament is ended, so is the union.

It is absolutely against Lutheran rubrical tradition to do things like dispose of what is left in the chalice down the sink in the kitchen, or to ever mix remaining consecrated hosts with the supply of unconsecrated bread in the sacristy. Luther had a Lutheran priest thrown out of the church for doing this.

1. I’m not sure I want to go down the road of using every Luther quote or every Lutheran practice as the basis for Dogma…
2. As I noted, there has been and still is profound respect for the elements. I compared it to a respect for Our Lady. But that’s not the same as a dogmatic embrace that such is STILL the Body and Blood of our Lord.

How long is the Body of Christ present, some might insist on asking. Okay, to borrow a phrase from Luther at the diet of Worms, “you want a simple answer, here it is.” The Body and Blood of Christ is present, beginning with the consecration, by which our Lord Himself speaks His Word over the bread and wine, until it all has been consumed into the body of the communicant, and if for some ungodly reason, a host remains sitting around too long, we must trust that** it is the Body of Christ as long as it is still characteristically bread**. If it is discovered in a corner somewhere, and is no longer edible, then it must be disposed of reverently, that means by burning, and thoroughly cleansing the area where it was found. There is ample Lutheran precedent for this, and it befits our doctrine of the venerable presence of our Lord’s Body and Blood in the Most Holy sacrament.

Is this a quote from the Confessions? If so, where?

It raises far more issues for me than it addresses, for example, what is meant by “CHARACTERISTICALLY bread?”

Well, I think perhaps we agree: There is no doctrine on this specific issue among Lutherans. Many of us agree that the elements should be treated with respect, but it’s not dogma that they “remain” His Body and Blood in perpetuity or any any other sense. Scripture doesn’t say, the Confessions don’t say - so we don’t? Dogmatically, anyway?

.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Just as many non-Catholics have the wrong impression that Catholics worship saints and statues, many non-Lutherans have the wrong impression as to what Lutherans mean by “Sola Scriptura.” Lutherans do not believe in the same version of Sola Scriptura that you are probably thinking of, where “Bible alone” means all tradition is chucked out the window. Lutherans have never believed that, going all the way back to Martin Luther, who was highly critical of the “radical reformers” such as Karlstadt who destroyed statues, etc.

To Lutherans, “Sola Scriptura” means that Scripture is the “norm which norms other norms.” Other norms, such as the Creeds, Confessions, etc. are not thrown out - we believe in the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds - because we acknowledge they were shaped by and conform to Scripture. So Lutherans are up front about it and acknowledge our reliance on other traditions - its just that many, both Lutheran and non-Lutheran, don’t really understand what we mean by “Sola Scriptura.”

What about Sola Fides? Do we have a misconception about the Lutheran use of the term, as in anything goes, as long as you have faith in God you are saved?

 

[Deacon_Latif]

What about Sola Fides? Do we have a misconception about the Lutheran use of the term, as in anything goes, as long as you have faith in God you are saved?

Yes, that would definitely be a misconception. Lutheran doctrine is clear that good works are necessary, and commanded by God, and God’s will. See the Augsburg Confession on this. Only those good works do not merit justification before God.

 

[Deacon_Latif]

What about Sola Fides? Do we have a misconception about the Lutheran use of the term, as in anything goes, as long as you have faith in God you are saved?

By the way, Christine, if you go to the “Faith & Works” discussion, you will see a couple things I wrote that will help you better grasp the Lutheran position on this. I do not know how to link you over to it.

 

[IowaJay]

What about Sola Fides? Do we have a misconception about the Lutheran use of the term, as in anything goes, as long as you have faith in God you are saved?

Good question. I’m going to answer your question from a slightly different angle, because the debate really is more about the role of the human will in salvation than about salvation by “faith alone” or salvation by “faith + works.”

First, the similarities between Lutherans and Catholics. You can find any number of quotes from Luther and the Confessional Lutheran writings which emphasize works of love - saving faith is a faith that cannot help but to perform good works. So, Lutherans do not believe that works do not matter - they do. Also, Lutherans do not believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved” - saving faith can be rejected. An “anything goes” attitude is not acceptable.

So where is the difference? Lutherans believe that after the fall, humans have no power or will to turn to God. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Any works performed without that gift of saving faith do nothing to improve our standing in the eyes of God. So, only faith saves, and then works follow as a result of the saving faith. Catholic theology, if I understand it correctly, believes that the human will still has some ability to cooperate with God, so faith and works are the result, at least in part, of human work.

 

[qui_est_ce]

So where is the difference? Lutherans believe that after the fall, humans have no power or will to turn to God. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Any works performed without that gift of saving faith do nothing to improve our standing in the eyes of God. So, only faith saves, and then works follow as a result of the saving faith. Catholic theology, if I understand it correctly, believes that the human will still has some ability to cooperate with God, so faith and works are the result, at least in part, of human work.

Thank you for that. Theology can get some complicated nuances.

If I read you correctly, then one must believe in Jesus in order to be saved?

 

[IowaJay]

Thank you for that. Theology can get some complicated nuances.

If I read you correctly, then one must believe in Jesus in order to be saved?

Yes.

Speaking of nuances, though, I would add a caveat, which may or may not be orthodox Lutheran theology. With regard to baptism, I’ve heard it said that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary for salvation. God has revealed to us that baptism is for our salvation. But, God is God, and God will save whomever He will save, baptism or no baptism. I would say the same thing about belief in Jesus.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Facts are facts. Martin Luther did use unnecessary “earthy” language. He also was very anti-Semitic Luther wasn’t a saint, that’s for sure.

Well, not on his own standing - nor did he claim to be. He insisted that he was a mirerable sinner, desperately in need of grace and mercy, desperately in need of the Savior.

What you may not realize is that no Lutheran denomination regards him as incapble of error or as the infallible vicar of Christ. He is often regarded as a couragious man, an excellent scholar of biblical languages, and often a sound exeget. But he was a mere mortal, potentially errant, fully accountable. He put his pants on one leg at a time. His words are in no sense normative; they are simply his words just as my words are my words - not to be confused with God’s Word.

As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.

You are confusing issues…

Lutherans do embrace Tradition - rather passionately. And yes, we are Confessional - sometimes passionately. However, we do not embrace either as the norma normans, and we do not suggest that our teachings are correct because they are our teachings.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Yes.

Speaking of nuances, though, I would add a caveat, which may or may not be orthodox Lutheran theology. With regard to baptism, I’ve heard it said that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary for salvation. God has revealed to us that baptism is for our salvation. But, God is God, and God will save whomever He will save, baptism or no baptism.

I would say that Baptism is required but not essential. It is binding and mandated for us, but not for God.

Let me make it personal (forgive me). I was baptized within one minute of my birth in the operating room (it was far from certain that I would live). I was not conscience at the time (or for some days after this). Nonetheless, as a Lutheran, I believe that if I had died - I would be in Heaven today. God can grant His promise to a tiny baby no less than to a scholar with a Ph.D. in Catholic Apologetics. On the other hand, if I had been born in an age of less progressed medical care, I almost surely would have quickly died (if I had been born at all) and NOT been baptized. While I cannot and will not state this as dogma, it is my passionate pious opinion that God would not have been bound by the reality that I was not baptized but rather would regard that He called me Home before such could happen. We are bound to the Command (as we are to ALL His commands!), He however is not so bound.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Good question. I’m going to answer your question from a slightly different angle, because the debate really is more about the role of the human will in salvation than about salvation by “faith alone” or salvation by “faith + works.”

First, the similarities between Lutherans and Catholics. You can find any number of quotes from Luther and the Confessional Lutheran writings which emphasize works of love - saving faith is a faith that cannot help but to perform good works. So, Lutherans do not believe that works do not matter - they do. Also, Lutherans do not believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved” - saving faith can be rejected. An “anything goes” attitude is not acceptable.

So where is the difference? Lutherans believe that after the fall, humans have no power or will to turn to God. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Any works performed without that gift of saving faith do nothing to improve our standing in the eyes of God. So, only faith saves, and then works follow as a result of the saving faith. Catholic theology, if I understand it correctly, believes that the human will still has some ability to cooperate with God, so faith and works are the result, at least in part, of human work.

Well stated, thank you.

I “look” at it this way: There is only one Savior. And it’s not me.

IF MY “works” were the reason for my justification, then Jesus was moot (and I probably should be a Jew or Muslim). Embracing Jesus as THE Savior requires that I reject ME as such.

But that does not - by any means - suggest that my works are moot IN REGARD TO EVERYTHING! Even the Muslim is to be commended when he does well and serves his fellow man in love! And Christians are to be known for our love! Our abiding Great Commandment is this: Love one another even as I have first loved you!" This is not an optional suggestion, and the doing of such is not moot. Faith is a doing, active, giving reality. Faith is not some stagnet, cognative affirmation - it is of our whole being. Faith that is a chant is not faith that is involved with justification. Now, I would not press this TOO far: I was baptized within one minute of my birth and wasn’t even conscience (for some days after) and yet I believe I had faith - and was justified, even though I did no “works.” But, normally, faith is a “busy, active” reality. It means we love and serve our fellow man, largely through our vocations and daily living.

I hope that helps a bit.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

=Philena;6241930]
He also was very anti-Semitic and believed the pope was the anti-Christ. Luther wasn’t a saint, that’s for sure.

Luther’s anti-judaism later in his life, though reprehensible, was not unlike many people of his time, including Ecke, who was a Catholic Luther nemesis. It is also important to point out that the Luther / Ecke 16th century anti-judaism (religion based) is not the same as the anti-semitism (race/ethnicity based) of the 20th century in Europe - Germany and the Soviet Union most notably.

The most important aspect about the historical fact of anti-judaism and anti-semitism is that Lutherans and Catholics now join together in rejecting and condemning this aspect of our joint history.

As for the pope or papacy as anti-chirst, the understanding of this has been changed by the modern notion of the anti-christ as some end-times beast. If one says that a teaching is not that of Christ, it can be said to be anti-christ.
I believe that few Lutherans would charge that Pope John-Paul II was “The Anti-Christ”. This Lutheran views JP II as perhaps the greatest Christian leader of my lifetime.

As for Lutherans, when they say they are “Sola Scriptura” that is misleading because they also rely on the traditons of the Augsberg and Lutheran Confessions. So Lutherans also rely on scripture and tradition as the Catholics do, only they are not upfront about acknowledging it.

We are quite upfront in our acknowledgement of the importance of Tradition. What is misleading is the corruption of the practice of sola scriptura by 19th and 20th century denominations and non-denominational groups, which is regularly and mistakenly cited as sola scriptura here.

Jon

 

[qui_est_ce]

**I would say that Baptism is required but not essential. It is binding and mandated for us, but not for God.
** This is beautifully and wonderfully put!

Let me make it personal (forgive me). I was baptized within one minute of my birth in the operating room (it was far from certain that I would live). I was not conscience at the time (or for some days after this). Nonetheless, as a Lutheran, I believe that if I had died - I would be in Heaven today. God can grant His promise to a tiny baby no less than to a scholar with a Ph.D. in Catholic Apologetics. On the other hand, if I had been born in an age of less progressed medical care, I almost surely would have quickly died (if I had been born at all) and NOT been baptized. While I cannot and will not state this as dogma, it is my passionate pious opinion that God would not have been bound by the reality that I was not baptized but rather would regard that He called me Home before such could happen. We are bound to the Command (as we are to ALL His commands!), He however is not so bound.

Awesome!

How I wish we could be one.

I believe LCMS and Catholics are a lot closer than LCMS will admit.

 

[Philena]

If one says that a teaching is not that of Christ, it can be said to be anti-christ.

Yet the Catholic Church and the Popes all through the centuries did preach the Gospel of Christ. Some were better at it than others, it is true. Martin Luther and others were wrong, Biblically speaking, in stating that the Pope is the antichrist. It is a ridiculous, defamatory, and scandalous charge.

The Bible gives an actual definition of anti-Christ which many ignore:

1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.