Lutheran/Reformed articles and debates

[MichaelNZ]

After visiting a Lutheran church while on vacation in Australia, I have found myself more and more drawn to Lutheranism. I do have an issue with their view on losing one's salvation, although they do say that believers can have assurance of salvation. They also embrace paradoxes (such as God's election vs free will).

Does anyone know of any good articles comparing Lutheran and Reformed theology? Or any good debates? I've benefited immensely from Dr James White's debates on Roman Catholicism and Islam, but I can't seem to find any debates between Lutherans and Reformed Christians.

 

[RamistThomist]

For me it comes down to Jesus' flesh being everywhere.

 

[Daniel M.]

This is a big topic of interest for me as I learn about differences among Reformed denominations.

There are a few articles I've read in regard to Lutheranism compared to more mainline Reformed beliefs, but they all conflict with one another, and have left me utterly confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hammondjones]

I have found interesting comparisons between Lutheran and Reformed systems in Vos' writings. His recently published Dogmatics interacts a fair bit with Lutheran theology, especially in Christology, obviously.

For free I found the following article:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vos_covenant.html

 

[Jake]

There's a Lutheran pastor who podcasts and blogs with a lot of response to the Reformed tradition. You can find information interacting with different streams, from Brian Schwertley to Escondido R2K theology. I came across him when I was curious to hear a Lutheran's take on the RPW, as he did an episode on his show about it (he went to Geneva College and so has a bit of familiarity with the RP tradition).

http://justandsinner.libsyn.com/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/

 

[Dachaser]

Lutherans hold to one being able to lose eternal life, but also would see the presense of Christ in the Communion as real, but not transformed into Jesus physically as Catholics do?

And they see water baptism not as rite into community, but actually as providing saving Grace in the water? But again, not as catholics do, but something real happens to the baby?

They seem to be somehow go between reformed/Catholic teaching, butthey would see water baptist requred in order to be saved?

 

[Justified]

God's election vs free will.

In classical Reformed theology these are not necessarily at odds. Reformed thinkers believed in both free choice and election. The will was for both Lutherans and Reformed in bondage relative to matters of salvation.

I think Jacob is right. The main difficulties are Christological difficulties.

 

[Dachaser]

They do have a different view in the ordinances also though, correct?

And their main different on the Person andwork of Christ would be?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Lutherans may accuse Reformed of Nestorianism; the Reformed turn it about and may accuse the Lutheran of Eutychianism. Probably, neither is strictly true; but the reasons for thinking the other could be over the line thataway remain.

Both camps may think they see too much "rationalism" in the other, depending on the subject or on how the issue is framed.

The main disagreements are seen in the areas of Christology, sacramentology, and predestination.

Worship can appear quite different, if the respective traditions are taken seriously. We should understand our own "Regulative Principle;" and we sometimes describe the other Reformation counterpart to our principle as "Lutheran," which states: things not expressly forbidden for worship may be used, provided some beneficent rationale be offered defending it.

In practice, many Lutheran churches eschewing trendiness tend to favor the mainstream look/feel of "traditional" developed liturgy of the Western church; and therefore may strike the curious observer as "Roman," but is probably closest to the Anglo-Catholic wing of the English tradition, just based on the sacramental focus in each, and the distinctions maintained from Rome. Likewise, I would associate the look and feel of low-church Lutherans to the low-church Anglicans. This, in spite of the Calvinist flavor of the 39-Articles and BCP over against the Lutheran Book of Concord.

So, those aspects of worship we tend to see as unauthorized in spite of antiquity are the aspects most likely to be favored by conservative Lutherans constitutionally resistant to more recent ideas (irrespective of the beneficent rationale).

My understanding of Lutheran preaching is limited. I suspect that within the various denominations of Lutherans preaching takes a variety of forms and emphasis. I have heard (audio) very in-depth Bible study by Lutheran pastors; while most sermons I've listened to tend 1) to be drawn from one of the Gospels; 2) to be lighter expositionally than we may be used to. But I acknowledge my selection is limited.

Still, we may reflect on how the sermon became, and continues for our branch of tradition to be of first importance. Since the preached Word dominates our service, and the symbolic Word (sacraments) are typically less frequent; then a weighty delivering of that preaching--even if it lacks great skill or polish--is considered the core of the service. When communion is added (and done properly) one notices that core distended and stretched into the sacramental activity that follows.

One can see the way in which robust sacramental life of the church pulls the focus toward itself. If the preached Word is to persist in being of first importance and primary focus, it is hard to see how the most frequent communion practice in our congregations can fail to become rote, a tacked-on experience. Because if they are robust (and I think they should be) they will inevitably draw the focus from the preaching to the symbol, until the symbol comes to dominate the service, and the preaching merely serves the symbol.

And this is what I see in the Lutheran churches which have an "altar-centric" service of worship. There will always be some powerful preaching; talent abides in every denomination. But it's easy to settle for less as long as the sacrament is present, when the sacrament is the inevitable and invariable focus. By contrast, our churches generally do not thrive or survive unless there is real life in the pulpit.

 

[RamistThomist]

These are my notes from Preus's book on Lutheran Scholasticism, which outline the differences.

Prolegomena as Christology: Calov shows how one’s presuppositions about theological method determine one’s conclusions in Christology.
The Reformed position:
(a) for the divine nature, to know is the same as to be;
(b) The human nature is not capable of (a).
© The personal union cannot confuse the two natures.
(d) Christ was like us in matters of knowledge.

The Lutheran position: All personal propositions made regarding the person of Christ can be predicated to either nature.
3-fold knowledge of Christ
The soul of Christ has beatific knowledge
Christ’s soul possessed an infused knowledge that was perfect.
Christ’s soul possessed and acquired empirical knowledge.
The Logos communicated to Christ’s human knowledge (scientiae visionis).

Archetypal and ectypal theology
1.Archetypal theology is important because it grounds our theology in God.
2. There is an original, archetypal theology in Christ, and that according also to his Human nature, again because of the personal union (167).
Col. 2:3,9 for the Lutherans means the Son of God Incarnate can have archetypal theology.
3. The communication of attributes is more of an impartation than a production of something new.

 

[oeco]

These are my notes from Preus's book on Lutheran Scholasticism, which outline the differences.

Prolegomena as Christology: Calov shows how one’s presuppositions about theological method determine one’s conclusions in Christology.
The Reformed position:
(a) for the divine nature, to know is the same as to be;
(b) The human nature is not capable of (a).
[emoji767] The personal union cannot confuse the two natures.
(d) Christ was like us in matters of knowledge.

The Lutheran position: All personal propositions made regarding the person of Christ can be predicated to either nature.
3-fold knowledge of Christ
The soul of Christ has beatific knowledge
Christ’s soul possessed an infused knowledge that was perfect.
Christ’s soul possessed and acquired empirical knowledge.
The Logos communicated to Christ’s human knowledge (scientiae visionis).

Archetypal and ectypal theology
1.Archetypal theology is important because it grounds our theology in God.
2. There is an original, archetypal theology in Christ, and that according also to his Human nature, again because of the personal union (167).
Col. 2:3,9 for the Lutherans means the Son of God Incarnate can have archetypal theology.
3. The communication of attributes is more of an impartation than a production of something new.

Incredibly useful, thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KeithW]

I've been attending a Lutheran church for the last year. (Long story) Here are some differences and similarities I have observed.

They hold that God is sovereign.

They hold to original sin and the complete inability of man towards God. But they believe that at the possibility of salvation the Holy Spirit is given to a man and the man now has the will to reject salvation and resist the Holy Spirit. If he does reject salvation the Holy Spirit is taken away. This is in the part of the Book Of Concord written after Luther died, and in a 1932 statement of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS).

As others have mentioned they are very sacramental -- baptism, the Word, the Lord's Supper.

They never speak of when did you first repent and believe but instead ask the question, have you been baptized? They hold that baptism has saved you (maybe sealed you into the body of Christ?).

Listening to the Word being preached automatically conveys grace and increases faith in everyone who hears it.

Partaking in the Lord's supper automatically conveys grace and increases faith in everyone who partakes. By the words of institution (reading the verses where the Lord's Supper is given) Jesus spiritually automatically is in and around the elements.

So for example, my pastor's brother is both a pastor and a seminary professor and is always teaching that baptism, hearing the Word, and partaking in the Lord's Supper is what makes you right with God.

Election - the average church goer has never had it explained to them. I cannot find if Luther ever explained it but in his book "Bondage Of The Will" he talked about it as if it is a divine right of God. I had the privilege to explain it to our Bible study group.

Preaching may simply follow the lectionary. Somewhere in the past, passages were chosen from the Bible so every Sunday there is a reading from Psalms, the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Epistles. The sermon may be based on any of these.

A major section of the liberal Lutherans are the seminary professors who teach against the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible. One of those professors was at our church recently giving lectures teaching those things. I was shocked no one realized what was going on.

When I started attending the weekly Bible study I was pleasantly surprised to find a few people who have an understanding of God and His Word based on a lifetime of study and a hunger for God.

 

[KeithW]

I have found myself more and more drawn to Lutheranism.

I do not find myself drawn to what they teach. I disagree with their view that baptism, hearing the Word, and partaking of the Lord's Supper automatically conveys grace and increases faith. I only attend because of the terrible lack of good churches in my area.

 

[MW]

Does anyone know of any good articles comparing Lutheran and Reformed theology?

In Truth's Victory over Error by David Dickson the reader will find the Lutherans confuted under the following sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith: 3:2; 5:2; 9:1; 10:1; 12:1; 19:2; 20:4; 25:3; 27:2, 5, 6; 28:4; 29:5.

The specific errors which are confuted are as follows:

“The decree of predestination to be general and conditional, depending upon persevering faith (which, they affirm, depends upon the will of man), and foreseen infidelity, and want of faith.”
“The Lord concurs only to final actions, by a bare, naked, and idle permission.”
“Fallen man, and corrupted with original sin, is partly able by his own strength, the grace of God assisting him, to prepare himself, and turn himself to God.”
“Men not elected are sometimes effectually called.”
“The children of God, some of them, may be cast off for a time totally, though not finally.”
On the commandments: “That three only belong to the first table, and seven to the second; and that ‘thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,’ with the foregoing ‘thou shalt not have any other gods before me,’ are but one command; and that ‘thou shalt not covet they neighbour’s house,’ and ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man-servant,’ &c., are two distinct commands.”
“The civil magistrate is not in duty to punish any man with the sword for errors in doctrine, but that they ought to be tolerated and suffered, provided such persons as own them do not trouble or molest the commonwealth.”
“Who will have none members of the visible church that are unbaptized.”
“The sacraments of themselves are true, immediate, and the effectual cause of our justification, and give life.”
“It is lawful for laics, or women, to administer the sacrament of baptism in case of necessity.”
“The difference between the sacraments of the Old Testament, and the New, consists in this: that those did delineate and shadow forth grace; these contain, offer, and confer grace.”
“Baptism is simply necessary to salvation; and that all, and those only, who are baptized, are most surely regenerated in that same very moment of time wherein baptism is administered.”
“The body and blood of Christ are corporally in, with, and under the bread and wine; and that, as the Papists also teach, his body and blood are taken corporally by the mouth by all communicants, believers and unbelievers?”

 

[Daniel M.]

Wonderful overview, MW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray]

Here's a good podcast by Brian Schwertly on Lutheranism. Was actually listening to it on my lunch break today.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=73106202952

 

[ReformedInSweden]

I'd compare these documents
http://www.lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition
https://wels.net/about-wels/what-we-believe/this-we-believe/
to the 5 points of Calvinism.

Total depravity is affirmed, unconditional election is sort of affirmed-ish, however, double predestination is denied in spite of affirming an election (very inconsistent!) Limited atonement is denied. (So is universalism, also very inconsistent!) Irresistible grace is denied, perseverance of the saints is denied.

For me this is more than enough to never put a foot into Lutheranism any more.
But then there's also the doctrine of Christ being bodily present in, with and under the bread and wine in the Lord's supper. And regeneration through baptism which can be lost again. You can be reborn and un-reborn numerous times throughout your life according to the Lutherans. Whether you make it or not to the end....who knows? Yes, they can comfort you with God being merciful, but they still deny the perseverance of the saints.

Then there are all the traditions of vestments, liturgy, candles, liturgical colours, installation of bishops and pastors, etc. etc. which - although not spoken out loud - are as sacred as Scripture to them.

I pray God will grant me grace to stay far away from Lutheranism for the rest of my life.

 

[ReformedInSweden]

And their main different on the Person andwork of Christ would be?

Christ has made atonement for every single human being. This they call objective justification. Applying it to yourself by believing it, they call subjective justification.
So why then do people end up in hell? Because they did not believe the objective justification. They were justified, their receipt of justification was in the bank so to speak, but they didn't retrieve it.
So the job of the Lutheran pastor is to tell the people that they already are justified. If they believe his message, they've received the justification. If not, they'll end up in hell as a justified sinner who didn't believe his justification.

I've only one word for this: blasphemy.

 

[ReformedInSweden]

My understanding of Lutheran preaching is limited. I suspect that within the various denominations of Lutherans preaching takes a variety of forms and emphasis. I have heard (audio) very in-depth Bible study by Lutheran pastors; while most sermons I've listened to tend 1) to be drawn from one of the Gospels; 2) to be lighter expositionally than we may be used to. But I acknowledge my selection is limited.

I agree with you here. They use a lectionary with (very short) readings from the OT, the Gospels and the epistles and the sermon is most often drawn from the gospelreading.

And this is what I see in the Lutheran churches which have an "altar-centric" service of worship. There will always be some powerful preaching; talent abides in every denomination. But it's easy to settle for less as long as the sacrament is present, when the sacrament is the inevitable and invariable focus.

I agree here as well. The sacraments are of huge importance. They can go so far to say that if there's no faithful Lutheran church at all in your area, then visit an unfaithful one because then you at least still have the sacrament of the altar.

I'd like to add that Lutherans accuse Calvinists of being legalists who put most emphasise on obedience and the glory of God while Lutherans (according to themselves) put most emphasise on the grace of God.

 

[Daniel M.]

It should be noted that the Lutheran church in general does not represent the theology of Martin Luther 100%, as affirmed by much of its ecclesiology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RamistThomist]

I've always thought the Federal Vision was "Lutheranism minus justification by faith alone."

 

[KeithW]

I do not find myself drawn to what they teach. ... I only attend because of the terrible lack of good churches in my area.

Recently I found myself in a position of talking with two different lifelong Lutherans in two different Lutheran churches. It was obvious both have a hunger for God and His Word. This is something I recognize and love to interact with folks who have this. In these two cases I had the opportunity to encourage and support this. It turns out both of them were going through the process of deciding to leave the Lutheran church for churches which spend more time teaching the Bible. Both of them after making their decision expressed how overjoyed they were to find entire churches who seek God and His Word, something not possible within the confines of Lutheranism. I could not help myself but to rejoice with them.

Since I believed the doctrines of Grace before going to a Lutheran church I can tell you how doctrinal restrictive and confining it is there. My particular pastor allows me to hold to the doctrines of Grace and not believe the things which differentiate Lutherans from all other denominations. But this is a conservative Lutheran church and the pastor is open to discussing things in the Bible. His brother is a seminary professor who also teaches at this church and is most definitely not open to discussing things of the Bible, only in discussing and teaching Lutheran doctrines -- even when those contradict what Luther himself wrote.

The first Lutheran church I attended was a liberal church. They have no foundation of belief in the God that people with reformed theology know. If I ever give up on seeking God I would go to that liberal Lutheran church because the God of the Bible is not mentioned. You can sit there, be entertained, and the pastor will speak on something like science but not the God of the Bible.

 

[py3ak]

So the job of the Lutheran pastor is to tell the people that they already are justified. If they believe his message, they've received the justification. If not, they'll end up in hell as a justified sinner who didn't believe his justification.

That is not good. In America, Robert Farrar Capon took that idea one step forward. Not knowing about your justification doesn't send you to hell, it just makes you less happy here; you only go to hell if, after understanding that you're justified, you choose to anyway.

 

[TheologiaCrucis]

I was a Lutheran pastor for 7 years and began my PhD work at Concordia Seminary. I am still heavily influenced by Lutheranism and my dissertation deals with Luther. Robert Kolb was my mentor. I ultimately had a few issues with the sectarianism in the LCMS and some of their perspectives on the Lord's Supper. I am currently attending an independent Presbyterian church, and haven't pursued colloquy yet into a Reformed denomination. Perhaps I will in time.

I think the biggest thing lacking in Lutheranism is virtually no emphasis on the Covenant as a central component of biblical interpretation. My dissertation suggests that Luther's paradigmatic distinction between the two kinds of righteousness functioned for Luther much like the covenant principle does for later Reformed Christians. So, Luther insists on "testament" rather than "covenant" as the translation of the words of institution for the Lord's Supper. This blunder, I would suggest, is what makes him unable to discern the connection of the elements to covenantal signs. That said, he was willing to sign (along with Calvin) the Variata of the Augsburg Confession and revised by Melanchthon (who originally composed it). Melanchthon (my avatar) was accused after Luther's death by a crowd who called themselves Gnesio-Lutherans (real Lutherans) of "Crypto-Calvinism," particularly with regard to his views on the Lord's Supper. Oddly, they also accused him of synergism too, which I believe was due to their misunderstanding of his assertion that the human will is, in Aristotlean lingo, a material cause of conversion. Thus a huge schism between these Philippist Lutherans and the Gnesio crowd emerged after Luther's death. The Formula of Concord is the Lutheran resolution on this controversy and it effectively decided with the Gnesio positions and makes several condemnations of Crypto-Calvinism, particularly in the article pertaining to the Lord's Supper. After 1580 and the Formula much of the Philippist crowd ended up aligning with the Reformed. It was this early controversy/division in Luthernism where you will find some of the more intriguing debates between present Lutheranism and a more Reformed brand of Lutheranism as embraced by the Philippists.

For a Lutheran view in Christology see the Formula of Concord or, at much greater length, Martin Chemnitz's Two Natures of Christ. In short the Lutheran view of Christology argues that the human nature if Christ participates in the attributes of divinity by virtue of the unity of persons. So, the human nature post-resurrection appears in a locked room, disappears from the table, etc. Human nature cannot do this by its own so, Lutherans argue, this suggests a communication of attributes.

This issue comes to a head in the debate over the Lord's Supper because this becomes Luther's justification for his position regarding the presence of the actual body and blood in, with and among the elements of bread and wine. Oddly, however, Luther's objection to Transubstantiation was that it imposed Aristotle upon the words of Christ and tried to explain the mystery in terms not delineated in The biblical text. I would suggest that the text also gives no exegetical reason to impose the above Christology upon the words either... Thus Luther ends up in his debate with the Reformed (mostly Zwingli) violating his own principle by which he rejected Rome's view.

 

[MichaelNZ]

Thanks for all the replies.

My main interest in the Lutheran tradition is its worship (although believing that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived could make evangelism easier). Being a former traditionalist Roman Catholic I am attracted to a ritualistic style of worship and many Lutheran churches seem to have that. I love my current church and the people in it, but being a Reformed church it has very simple worship. It also doesn't follow the church year (except for Good Friday, Ascension Thursday and Christmas Day), which is one thing I miss, particularly on Palm Sunday.

I admit that Reformed theology does seem to have things more worked out than Lutheran theology, particularly with regards to election and salvation. Lutherans are very big on accepting paradoxes, such as God's election to salvation as well as the ability of man to fall away (they say that Scripture clearly teaches both, but Lutherans don't understand how they fit together). On one of the podcasts on one of the sites mentioned above, the Lutheran pastor said that Lutherans don't try to answer the question "why are some saved and others not?"

We all have verses that we interpret in a way that they aren't saying what they appear to say. For the Roman Catholics, it's Matthew 1:25 which clearly teaches that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life. For Evangelicals/Reformed, it's the verses that say one can fall away from the faith. Interestingly enough, I can't think of any for Lutherans (but I'm sure there are some).

KeithW, does the pastor of the Lutheran church that you attend allow you to receive Communion? My dream is to move to the US, so if I did end up at a conservative Lutheran church (LCMS/WELS), do you think they would allow me to receive Communion if I held to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Dr. Oilphint from WTS-Philly has a great lecture on itunes concerning the "Extra Calvinisticum" and deals with some Lutheran objections, etc...

 

[ReformedInSweden]

Thanks for all the replies.We all have verses that we interpret in a way that they aren't saying what they appear to say. For the Roman Catholics, it's Matthew 1:25 which clearly teaches that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life. For Evangelicals/Reformed, it's the verses that say one can fall away from the faith. Interestingly enough, I can't think of any for Lutherans (but I'm sure there are some).

I think Lutherans don't do anything else but explaining away what verses actually say. Because they do not believe the doctrines of grace, they can't do anything else but explaining away all these verses that leap of the pages everywhere.

KeithW, does the pastor of the Lutheran church that you attend allow you to receive Communion? My dream is to move to the US, so if I did end up at a conservative Lutheran church (LCMS/WELS), do you think they would allow me to receive Communion if I held to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?

I've been a member of a sister church of the WELS in Sweden which is more or less governed by the WELS. There you are definitely not allowed to become a member and receive communion if you don't agree with exactly everything that's in their doctrinal statement.
As for the LCMS; I've listened to their very conservative radio show for many years and as far as I know there's a division within the LCMS with conservatives on one side, who practice closed communion and would most probably not allow you to take communion unless you're a member and subscribe to the whole of their doctrinal statement, and liberals on the other side, who do not practise closed communion. But maybe KeithW knows more about this.

My main interest in the Lutheran tradition is its worship. Being a former traditionalist Roman Catholic I am attracted to a ritualistic style of worship and many Lutheran churches seem to have that. I love my current church and the people in it, but being a Reformed church it has very simple worship. It also doesn't follow the church year (except for Good Friday, Ascension Thursday and Christmas Day), which is one thing I miss, particularly on Palm Sunday.

I can understand this, I've loved their liturgy and lectionary myself while being a Lutheran. However, the pictures and statutes of Christ present simply everywhere (even stamped on the host used in communion) does make it rather problematic to worship there when you hold on to the reformed doctrines. I also think that although they are very much aware that their liturgy and lectionary is man-made, they elevate it as sacred anyway. Just take a look at all the programs about the divine liturgy in the archives of the above mentioned radio show. They say it's all adiaphorah (neither commanded, nor forbidden) but they treat it as sacred as Scripture. And then there's the other problem which Brian Schwertly dealt with in his podcast which someone posted on this thread - is all this what Lutherans call 'adiaphorah' in worship really adiaphorah? Or is it simply forbidden in Scripture? That makes worshipping in a Lutheran church even more problematic.

 

[KeithW]

KeithW, does the pastor of the Lutheran church that you attend allow you to receive Communion? My dream is to move to the US, so if I did end up at a conservative Lutheran church (LCMS/WELS), do you think they would allow me to receive Communion if I held to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?

I've been a member of a sister church of the WELS in Sweden which is more or less governed by the WELS. There you are definitely not allowed to become a member and receive communion if you don't agree with exactly everything that's in their doctrinal statement.
As for the LCMS; I've listened to their very conservative radio show for many years and as far as I know there's a division within the LCMS with conservatives on one side, who practice closed communion and would most probably not allow you to take communion unless you're a member and subscribe to the whole of their doctrinal statement, and liberals on the other side, who do not practise closed communion. But maybe KeithW knows more about this.

The LCMS view of the Lord's Supper was the first thing I studied in their documents. The LCMS holds to closed communion. From Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod:

QUESTION: Being raised in the LCMS, I was surprised today when I was visiting an LCMS church that had a pamphlet explaining their beliefs about Communion. It went on to say that if the visitor believed these things also then they could commune at that church. I thought only LCMS members could commune at LCMS churches. Has this changed?

ANSWER: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars.

The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion.

And...

QUESTION: What does the Missouri Synod teach regarding the sacrament of communion and who can partake in this sacrament?

ANSWER: The LCMS believes Scripture teaches the Lord's Supper is a precious gift of God in which Christ gives us His true body and blood (in a miraculous way), together with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith.

Because the Bible teaches that this Sacrament may also be spiritually harmful if misused, and that participation in the Lord's Supper is an act of confession of faith, the LCMS ordinarily communes only those who have been instructed in the teachings of our church and who have confessed their faith in these teachings.

So yes, they do hold to closed communion, and the LCMS has short documents on how to explain this to people seeking communion. For example they have a document called "Fellowship in the Lord’s Supper". But whether a particular LCMS church practices closed or open communion is dependent on that particular church. The church I go to practices open communion. But after going through the adult instruction for people new to the Lutheran church I explained to the pastor that I do not hold to the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper and why I do not.

 

[Dachaser]

So they wouldsee that God already has reconciled all sinners back to Himself at the Cross, and that the person themselves would be removing themselves out of that justified state by refusing the Lord Jesus?

 

[Dachaser]

Do they hold to water baptism imparting saving grace to the infant then, and how would they see/view the spiritual presense of Jesus actually in Communion then?

And isn't there that really big difference to them between Law/Grace, in same fashion as somone holding to a Dispensational theology view might?

And do they have a Bible version thatis recommended by their Church for use?