Major Differences of Lutheran MO Synod?
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I always saw them as the PCA equivalent in the Lutheran world. The Wisconsin guys are supposed to be "harder core," but the MO guys are okay
I'm not sure the nature of your question, Andrew.
They are what they are--Lutherans.
They are a comparatively large denomination (compared to us), although not the mainline (ELCA). Largeness, like you know being in the PCA, tends to create factions with different levels of devotion to the church's Confession. These would be "internal" problems.
McFadden is our resident LCMS, grandfathered (no pun intended) on our Board. He can speak with far more authority than I.
If the "problems" you are thinking of are our theological differences with them, you could take up their Book of Concord and note their particularities.
Christology, sacraments, and elements of soteriology (think TULIP) are places where there can be serious, interconnected disagreement. It all has to do with how we and they plug the pieces together.
They are what they are--Lutherans.
They are a comparatively large denomination (compared to us), although not the mainline (ELCA). Largeness, like you know being in the PCA, tends to create factions with different levels of devotion to the church's Confession. These would be "internal" problems.
McFadden is our resident LCMS, grandfathered (no pun intended) on our Board. He can speak with far more authority than I.
If the "problems" you are thinking of are our theological differences with them, you could take up their Book of Concord and note their particularities.
Christology, sacraments, and elements of soteriology (think TULIP) are places where there can be serious, interconnected disagreement. It all has to do with how we and they plug the pieces together.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
The nature of my question is based on my rather close to complete ignorance of Lutheranism and L. MO Synod more specifically. Just asking for some help.
If someone were to ask for the problems (major) of the PCA, I'd be right here to help.
I have heard that theologically there are major issues, but I am just unaware/ignorant of Lutheranism (current).
If someone were to ask for the problems (major) of the PCA, I'd be right here to help.
I have heard that theologically there are major issues, but I am just unaware/ignorant of Lutheranism (current).
Their major problem is that they are Lutheran.
The Lutherans at the Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis have books in their library denying the perseverance of the saints. The Lutheran pastor I asked about this told me, "In John 10 we have a promise that nobody can grab Christ's sheep out of the Good Shepherd's hand...but they can jump out themselves if they want to..."
Plus, here is Luther's Small Catechism on baptism:
Then there is their view of the Lord's Supper = consubstantiation.
Also, here is what they believe concerning confessing sins to a pastor:
The Lutherans at the Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis have books in their library denying the perseverance of the saints. The Lutheran pastor I asked about this told me, "In John 10 we have a promise that nobody can grab Christ's sheep out of the Good Shepherd's hand...but they can jump out themselves if they want to..."
Plus, here is Luther's Small Catechism on baptism:
Then there is their view of the Lord's Supper = consubstantiation.
Also, here is what they believe concerning confessing sins to a pastor:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Practical 20th century issues: To their great credit, when liberalism was sweeping the ranks in the church world, Preus and others held the line and kept Concordia and LCMS from going liberal (even affirming inerrancy, I think).
Theological issues: as noted, they are Lutherans. Communicatio of divine attributes to the human nature of Christ; apply that to the Lord's Supper, plus some things on soteriology.
There were two Lutheran churches in my town, one ELCA and the other LCMS. The former had to shut down (no surprise, liberals aren't known for a vibrant church growth). The other is doing fine. I've visited there and with the above theological issues already noted, it was just like a conservative, albeit more liturgical Presbyterian service.
Theological issues: as noted, they are Lutherans. Communicatio of divine attributes to the human nature of Christ; apply that to the Lord's Supper, plus some things on soteriology.
There were two Lutheran churches in my town, one ELCA and the other LCMS. The former had to shut down (no surprise, liberals aren't known for a vibrant church growth). The other is doing fine. I've visited there and with the above theological issues already noted, it was just like a conservative, albeit more liturgical Presbyterian service.
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, and in the actual service itself (in my experience) the pastor will say something along those lines from the Lutheran Service Book:
Now, I know that is done with a mind to John 20:22-23, but that always makes me feel a little uneasy.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Actually, the LCMS is a mixed bag. I've known MANY chaplains who are LCMS - with all of them having served as pastors - and to the man they'll talk about how some are remarkably liberal while others are quite conservative.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Is there a Sean Michael Lucas "On Being Presbyterian" equivalent work on the LCMS? I'd be interested in it if there is one.
I don't know of a popular-level work like that, but the definitive work on Lutheran theology contrasted with Reformed theology from a confessional Lutheran perspective is The Conservative Reformation and its Theology by Dr. C.P. Krauth. It is quite long, however.
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is incorrect. My friend, who is a Lutheran pastor, would be very upset with this charge, as would other confessional Lutherans. Consubstantiation is the view that two substances (for instance, the bread and the body) together form a third substance that would be both the bread and the body.
The Lutherans would say that there is a sacramental union between Christ's body and blood and the elements. Now the difference between our view is subtle, but extremely important. While they would not say that Christ's body is naturally present (but supernaturally present), this does not mean that they hold to a spiritual view, whereby we feed spiritually on the body and blood of Christ; Contrariwise, they believe that Christ's corporeal body and blood is supernaturally present. So if you ask them what's in the mouth, they would claim to be eating, as they say, "the true body and the true blood of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Another major difference is that they would say that all, even those without faith, feed upon Christ, while the Reformed would say that one cannot feed upon Christ except by faith.
That Lutherans believe in consubstantiation seems a common misconception (if, in fact, it is one): https://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/do-lutherans-believe-in-consubstantiation/
Of course, the Catholics don't believe they worship Mary, either...
Of course, the Catholics don't believe they worship Mary, either...
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
See this:Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia
It definately is a common misconception, one I definately held. In fact when I first met the Pastor, I asked him about consubstantion. He told me emphatically that it isn't Lutheran doctrine.
After several more talks with him, I am convinced that consubstantion isn't Lutheran doctrine. I'd be interested in knowing how that misconception was formed, however. Perhaps it came from a superficial understanding of corporeal presence in the supper.
"(if, in fact, it is one)"
Well, a lot of Lutherans would say that consubstantiation IS a misconception, but of course they may just be wrong, right?
I mean, what do they know about their doctrine, right?
What do Catholics know about their doctrine, right? They all swear they don't worship Mary, yet they direct prayers to her, treat her as mediator, and bow down before her....
The point would be to let them define their term, and don't label them with a term that has a meaning to them other than that which they use for themselves. It is the kind of respect we would like granted us for our views.
There apparently has been a view--maybe it was similar, maybe not so similar--and that had the name "consubstantiation" before the Lutherans had a "word" assigned for their view. CON- is a prefix that means "with;" and the Lutherans use "with" when associating the body of Christ and the bread (in, WITH, and under...); so probably someone (non-Lutheran) decided that "consubstantiation" would be good shorthand.
Besides, "consub." fits right alongside "transsub." for defining alien views, right? Not-quite the Roman view? How convenient.
Now then, many of our ST luminaries from the 19th century--like Charles Hodge--used the shorthand term in their works. Maybe in those days, American Lutherans weren't so offended, I don't know. A hundred-plus years later, we're still learning the term consubstantiation in Seminary and passing it on in SundaySchool as the term that captures the Lutheran view.
And today they'd like us to be less misleading. No "third substance," or whatever. OK, no more shorthand.
Now, if only the Lutherans would stop identifying anyone and everyone to their left who is non-Lutheran on the sacraments as "mere-memorialists."
There apparently has been a view--maybe it was similar, maybe not so similar--and that had the name "consubstantiation" before the Lutherans had a "word" assigned for their view. CON- is a prefix that means "with;" and the Lutherans use "with" when associating the body of Christ and the bread (in, WITH, and under...); so probably someone (non-Lutheran) decided that "consubstantiation" would be good shorthand.
Besides, "consub." fits right alongside "transsub." for defining alien views, right? Not-quite the Roman view? How convenient.
Now then, many of our ST luminaries from the 19th century--like Charles Hodge--used the shorthand term in their works. Maybe in those days, American Lutherans weren't so offended, I don't know. A hundred-plus years later, we're still learning the term consubstantiation in Seminary and passing it on in SundaySchool as the term that captures the Lutheran view.
And today they'd like us to be less misleading. No "third substance," or whatever. OK, no more shorthand.
Now, if only the Lutherans would stop identifying anyone and everyone to their left who is non-Lutheran on the sacraments as "mere-memorialists."
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
I heard that some Lutherans have a joke that we Reformed believe in the "Real-Absence" of Christ.Now, if only the Lutherans would stop identifying anyone and everyone to their left who is non-Lutheran on the sacraments as "mere-memorialists."
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Wow . . . so many points. Because of my "unusual" status described by Bruce, I REFUSE to say anything even vaguely contradictory to the Westminster Confession. My comments are intended to be strictly for informational purposes.
-The Synod believes, teaches, and confesses inerrancy.
-The Synod reports a membership of approximately 2.4 million (that is less than half of the uber liberal ELCA, but much larger than the slightly more conservative than LCMS WELS).
-The fight in St. Louis over higher criticism in the 70s was real. Preus and gang defended inerrancy (cf. John W. Montgomery).
-I'm sure that Ben has actually spoken with LCMS chaplains who say what he reports, but the pastors I know hew the line pretty tightly on things like inerrancy, creationism, rejection of higher criticism, refusal to change the policy against ordaining women to pastoral office.
-The Fort Wayne school is assiduously ANTI higher criticism. In fact, it would be my guess that they are more against it than many in the PCA. For instance, the Fort Wayne school is pretty uniformly Matthean priority. The profs see Marcan priority arguments as products of German higher criticism. They argue that inductive arguments, early church witnesses, and church tradition point to Matthew as the first Gospel. I heard a scholar allege that the shift to Marcan priority in Germany came as a result of rising antisemitism and a desire to rid the NT of Jewishness.
- Rod Rosenbladt on White Horse Inn is a LCMS theologian (also one of my college profs during Jeanette and my Westmont days in the early 70s).
- LCMS VEHEMANTLY rejects consubstantiation, arguing that it existed during the time of Luther and was rejected by Luther rather self-consciously at the same time that he rejected transubstantiation.
- LCMS begins with the cross of Christ, rather than the sovereignty of God. They also accept paradox far more readily than Reformed bodies.
- Both Calvin and Luther attended law school. Calvin finished and it shows in his greater logical consistency and legal type reasoning. Luther dropped out and it shows in his ad hoc approach to issues in theology.
- For a detailed list of differences between LCMS and Reformed thought, cf. the Westminster Confession with the Book of Concord.
- Reformed worship offers God a sacrifice of praise; Lutheran worship sees God coming down to serve us forgiveness.
- Confession/Absolution is based on John 20. And, yes, it is probably THE most offensive part of LCMS theology for a non-Lutheran (although I heard R.C. Sproul defend it as a reasonable interpretation of John 20).
- The official Bible translation for Synod materials is the ESV.
- Biggest differences = soteriology (most of it based on the Lutheran understanding of the communicatio idiomatum), particular nuance of the real presence in communion, and efficacy of baptism (particularly Luther's idea of infant faith).
- Both traditions speak of the law as a curb, mirror, and guide. Calvin emphasized the "guide" part, Luther emphasized the "mirror."
- The simplistic (and reductionistic) rap is that Lutheranism is strong on justification and weak on sanctification and that Calvinism is just the opposite. Neither side will cop to that as accurate, but it IS what the critics of each group say.
Frankly, Pastor Bruce (Contra Mundum) is almost always the most accurate, fair, and nuanced Reformed evaluator of the teachings of the LCMS on the PB. I am constantly amazed at his grasp of the intricacies of the matter.
THE internal problem in the Synod these days is a theology prof at one of the independent (not part of the Concordia system of the Synod) colleges who supports the ordination of women and some form of theistic evolution. The Synod formally opposes both of these points, but they are hamstrung with a process (cf. PCA BCO) that is cumbersome, hyper democratic, and difficult to use quickly to deal with matters such as this. The President of the Synod (i.e., highest paid employee of the organization) has said recently (with reference to this particular case) that he does not want to be part of a denomination that refuses to deal with false teachers in the ranks of its rostered clergy. I do not know too many other denom chief execs who would come out publicly and call Keller-esque views of creation and pro-women's ordination positions "false teaching."
Bottom line, despite the significant theological differences and some of the less material differences of emphasis, the LCMS is a fair parallel to the PCA in its attempt to be confessional and conservative in a Reformational way. And, like the PCA, it has a minority on the "missional" end that want to ape broad evangelicalism and a minority on the "confessional" end of the spectrum that seek to stick to a tighter doctrinal line. The LCMS struggles with a few outliers who are parallel to Keller and some of the PCA fellows who fuss over Genesis 1-3 and egalitarianism. However, as a whole, the Synod refuses to embrace egalitarianism (no ordination of women), rejects higher criticism, and upholds creationism (albeit without identifying the age of the earth).
-The Synod believes, teaches, and confesses inerrancy.
-The Synod reports a membership of approximately 2.4 million (that is less than half of the uber liberal ELCA, but much larger than the slightly more conservative than LCMS WELS).
-The fight in St. Louis over higher criticism in the 70s was real. Preus and gang defended inerrancy (cf. John W. Montgomery).
-I'm sure that Ben has actually spoken with LCMS chaplains who say what he reports, but the pastors I know hew the line pretty tightly on things like inerrancy, creationism, rejection of higher criticism, refusal to change the policy against ordaining women to pastoral office.
-The Fort Wayne school is assiduously ANTI higher criticism. In fact, it would be my guess that they are more against it than many in the PCA. For instance, the Fort Wayne school is pretty uniformly Matthean priority. The profs see Marcan priority arguments as products of German higher criticism. They argue that inductive arguments, early church witnesses, and church tradition point to Matthew as the first Gospel. I heard a scholar allege that the shift to Marcan priority in Germany came as a result of rising antisemitism and a desire to rid the NT of Jewishness.
- Rod Rosenbladt on White Horse Inn is a LCMS theologian (also one of my college profs during Jeanette and my Westmont days in the early 70s).
- LCMS VEHEMANTLY rejects consubstantiation, arguing that it existed during the time of Luther and was rejected by Luther rather self-consciously at the same time that he rejected transubstantiation.
- LCMS begins with the cross of Christ, rather than the sovereignty of God. They also accept paradox far more readily than Reformed bodies.
- Both Calvin and Luther attended law school. Calvin finished and it shows in his greater logical consistency and legal type reasoning. Luther dropped out and it shows in his ad hoc approach to issues in theology.
- For a detailed list of differences between LCMS and Reformed thought, cf. the Westminster Confession with the Book of Concord.
- Reformed worship offers God a sacrifice of praise; Lutheran worship sees God coming down to serve us forgiveness.
- Confession/Absolution is based on John 20. And, yes, it is probably THE most offensive part of LCMS theology for a non-Lutheran (although I heard R.C. Sproul defend it as a reasonable interpretation of John 20).
- The official Bible translation for Synod materials is the ESV.
- Biggest differences = soteriology (most of it based on the Lutheran understanding of the communicatio idiomatum), particular nuance of the real presence in communion, and efficacy of baptism (particularly Luther's idea of infant faith).
- Both traditions speak of the law as a curb, mirror, and guide. Calvin emphasized the "guide" part, Luther emphasized the "mirror."
- The simplistic (and reductionistic) rap is that Lutheranism is strong on justification and weak on sanctification and that Calvinism is just the opposite. Neither side will cop to that as accurate, but it IS what the critics of each group say.
Frankly, Pastor Bruce (Contra Mundum) is almost always the most accurate, fair, and nuanced Reformed evaluator of the teachings of the LCMS on the PB. I am constantly amazed at his grasp of the intricacies of the matter.
THE internal problem in the Synod these days is a theology prof at one of the independent (not part of the Concordia system of the Synod) colleges who supports the ordination of women and some form of theistic evolution. The Synod formally opposes both of these points, but they are hamstrung with a process (cf. PCA BCO) that is cumbersome, hyper democratic, and difficult to use quickly to deal with matters such as this. The President of the Synod (i.e., highest paid employee of the organization) has said recently (with reference to this particular case) that he does not want to be part of a denomination that refuses to deal with false teachers in the ranks of its rostered clergy. I do not know too many other denom chief execs who would come out publicly and call Keller-esque views of creation and pro-women's ordination positions "false teaching."
Bottom line, despite the significant theological differences and some of the less material differences of emphasis, the LCMS is a fair parallel to the PCA in its attempt to be confessional and conservative in a Reformational way. And, like the PCA, it has a minority on the "missional" end that want to ape broad evangelicalism and a minority on the "confessional" end of the spectrum that seek to stick to a tighter doctrinal line. The LCMS struggles with a few outliers who are parallel to Keller and some of the PCA fellows who fuss over Genesis 1-3 and egalitarianism. However, as a whole, the Synod refuses to embrace egalitarianism (no ordination of women), rejects higher criticism, and upholds creationism (albeit without identifying the age of the earth).
Last edited:
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I heard that some Lutherans have a joke that we Reformed believe in the "Real-Absence" of Christ.Now, if only the Lutherans would stop identifying anyone and everyone to their left who is non-Lutheran on the sacraments as "mere-memorialists."
THE joke (going both ways) can be illustrated by an actual encounter between Rod Rosenbladt and R.C. Sproul at some theological conference. Sproul said, "Hi, Monophysite" and Rosenbladt replied, "Hi, Nestorian."
in my opinion, the basic difference between the two Reformation cousins is Christological. Push the Lutheran into an unbalanced moment and you would think he was a Monophysite. Push a Reformed theologian into an unbalanced moment and you would think that you were talking to a Nestorian. Neither camps, at least not in their best theologians, commit the heretical overstep. However, their tendency would be in that direction.
Last edited:
Dennis;
You seem to really down-play the severity of the baptism error in the Lutheran church:
How can the LCMS profess justification by faith alone and then put forth what sounds to me like a position of baptismal regeneration. Am I understanding their view on baptism correctly? And if so, how can they be compared to the PCA? Am I judging them to harshly here?
You seem to really down-play the severity of the baptism error in the Lutheran church:
How can the LCMS profess justification by faith alone and then put forth what sounds to me like a position of baptismal regeneration. Am I understanding their view on baptism correctly? And if so, how can they be compared to the PCA? Am I judging them to harshly here?
MichaelNZ
Puritan Board Freshman
Many Lutheran churches have images of Christ and Mary which would be problematic from a Reformed perspective.
Lutherans only believe in single predestination. That is, they believe that God predestines people to heaven, but it is man who sends himself to hell. Such a view is inconsistent.
Lutherans only believe in single predestination. That is, they believe that God predestines people to heaven, but it is man who sends himself to hell. Such a view is inconsistent.
Lutherans admit of baptismal regeneration. But, it is not the Roman doctrine that they adhere to.
And do note that the Q&A quoted includes the necessity of faith for the eternal benefit, "...to all who believe this."
Because of their strong doctrine of "objectivity" re. the sacraments, they believe that God actively works in the right administration of them, always, because he promised to do so (as they read the Scriptural witness). That is, they believe the Word (not the activity as such, not ex opere operato) effects the reality. Consequently, they tend to have a very high view of the ministry and church.
Therefore, baptism as the work of God (executed in the world by ordained men) works faith in the baptized, even in children, and forgives them their sins. Those babies, as much as any baptized adult, are forgiven believers now, thanks to baptism.
But, as has already been pointed out, Lutherans believe a person can lose what he (objectively) had. He can lose his salvation. To us, this doesn't square with how we read the biblical data. But not to him; and although the Lutheran takes a very strong stand on monergistic salvation and a total work of God in bringing salvation to a man, he also thinks that immediately afterward the man can reject the gift. And so die. Apostasy to a Lutheran does not function as we tend to view it between the parameters of Gal.2:4 and Jas.2:19; but is simply leaving the faith that was actually his. "No one can pluck my sheep from mine and my Father's grasp" (Jn.10:27-29) does not include the one sheep-self.
In contrast to the stong objectivity of the Lutheran view of the sacraments, here is the Presbyterian view:
While a Presbyterian may admit that an infant could be so blessed as to have the seed of faith "germinated" as it were as soon as the water of baptism is applied, "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it...." The Scriptures do speak of infant faith. That water can speak as effectively (and perhaps better) than words at such a point, if the Spirit so determines. The key difference with the Lutherans is that we understand a distinction between the sign and the thing signified, the work of the man and the work of God--things which belong together, but which are not invariably joined. And, of course, the whole-cloth aspect of salvation: that what he has begun he will also complete, Php.1:6; union with Christ is not something that can be undone.
Since "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," Rom.11:29, we are unwilling to admit that saving faith is a certain product of baptismal beginnings. We are more confident in a full spectrum application of the means of grace over time, with an emphasis on the preached Word as the major means.
It is important to understand the Lutheran on his own, Protestant terms; and not lump him in with Rome when he distances his own view from that of Rome. Grace is not a substance. Faith is absolutely necessary. The Word is paramount. But the gift can be spurned.
Last edited:
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Thank you immensely for this Dennis and Bruce. This was very educational.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Here's my 4th grade understanding of consubstantiation its rivals:
Lutherans rightly reject ConSub. Rather, the bread and wine bring-Christ-present to the recipient
Lutherans rightly reject ConSub. Rather, the bread and wine bring-Christ-present to the recipient
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
What Bruce said. Luther believed that the Holy Spirit creates faith in the infant and that he was consistent in saying that all are saved by grace through faith. Indeed, the antipod of Lutheranism is not Reformed Calvinism, per se, but the derivative churches that teach decisional regeneration. To claim that a person can "decide" to become a Christian strikes the LCMS as Pelagian (or at least semi-Pelagian). Monergism requires that salvation be a "work" of God alone, not a cooperative effort between God and my "deciding" to accept Jesus.
Pergy, I am painfully aware of my special status on this board as a confirmed member of a LCMS church. My answers were intended to be descriptive in a way that would not incite a full throated debate by me that would put me off the board.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
If we want to get a little more precise, Lutherans believe that the "presence" of Christ can denote four things: local presence (teaching in Galilee), illocal presence (being inside a room without opening the door), repletive presence (Jer 23:24), and SACRAMENTAL presence. Here is a paragraph describing it:
One other difference to note with LCMS Lutherans. While both the PCA and the LCMS are "confessional" (PCA to Westminster Standards and LCMS to the Book of Concord), LCMS clergy are permitted NO exceptions or equivocations based on conscience. Unlike the liberal ELCA which allows their clergy to hold to quatenus subscription ("I believe IN SO FAR AS the confession is biblical"), EVERY LCMS clergy must affirm quia subscription ("I believe BECAUSE the confession is fully biblical"). That is why Ben's post surprised me. At least at the time of their ordination they had to buy the whole package, including inerrancy, without reservation. Some of the current debates over creation and women occur because the dissenters argue that these are not covered in the confessional documents, hence they claim a right to dissent from Synod doctrine.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
If I understand correctly, they also have an unbiblical view of church office. In my to a local LCMS service a year or two ago, they installed a woman elder. But from what I gathered it is viewed as a "secular" or administrative post that does not entail spiritual leadership.
I don't keep up with LCMS news much but I too have seen reports that some are wobbly on inerrancy.
You'll get some congregations that are very "traditional" in their worship whereas others aren't much different than broad evangelical megachurches.
I don't keep up with LCMS news much but I too have seen reports that some are wobbly on inerrancy.
You'll get some congregations that are very "traditional" in their worship whereas others aren't much different than broad evangelical megachurches.
- Status
