# Lutheran/Reformed articles and debates



## MichaelNZ (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

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


----------



## Daniel M. (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> 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:
> ...



Incredibly useful, thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KeithW (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 8, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> 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.”
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Daniel M. (Dec 8, 2016)

Wonderful overview, MW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2016)

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 (Dec 9, 2016)

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 (Dec 9, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> 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 (Dec 9, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 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. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> 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. (Dec 9, 2016)

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 (Dec 9, 2016)

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


----------



## KeithW (Dec 11, 2016)

KeithW said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2016)

ReformedInSweden said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2016)

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 (Dec 12, 2016)

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 (Dec 12, 2016)

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


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Dec 12, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> 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. 



MichaelNZ said:


> 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.



MichaelNZ said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2016)

ReformedInSweden said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > *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?
> ...


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 (Dec 13, 2016)

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 (Dec 13, 2016)

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?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 13, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> 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?


Yes, but only due to conjunction with the Word; and they believe the proper administration of baptism _imparts_ faith, and so faith--which they believe is necessary--is also invariably present for the infant.




Dachaser said:


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


You must be thinking of Law and Gospel, which is not the same idea as dispensational divisions between eras of law and grace, or "under law" vs. "under grace." Neither is the disjunction of Law and Gospel as _the two chief kinds of word in Scripture _exclusively the domain of Lutherans; but is a long-held distinction recognized by Protestants generally. Confessional Lutheranism (ala Walther) in the USA did make this disjunction radical, essential, and indispensable to their hermeneutic and preaching.




Dachaser said:


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


Doubtful.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 13, 2016)

So they would see God imparting saving faith to the infant in tjhe Baptism, would they see God doing that for any and all babies that it has been administered too then? They axctually get reborn again in the rite?

You are corrct, it was law and Gospel, as they tend to make a really big distinction on those 2...

Concordia is their publisher, think they useLutheryn Niv study bible a lot!


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Dec 13, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> So they would see 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?



It's kind of inconsistent, like many of their doctrines. Whole mankind is justified, but you still need to receive it by faith individually.

You can read it here in the statement of faith from the WELS:

_"1. We believe that *God has justified all sinners*, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that *all have been justified*, for “the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Romans 5:18).

2. We believe that in*dividuals receive this free gift of forgiveness * not on the basis of their own works, but only through faith (Ephesians 2:8,9). Justifying faith is trust in Christ and his redemptive work. This faith justifies not because of any power it has in itself, but only because of the salvation prepared by God in Christ, which it embraces (Romans 3:28; 4:5). On the other hand, although Jesus died for all, Scripture says that “whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). *Unbelievers forfeit the forgiveness won for them by Christ *(John 8:24)."_


The LCMS puts it this way: 

_"17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. *Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ*, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, *He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe,* accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: "There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law," Rom. 3:28."_


Here is a clarification from a Lutheran pastor:

_He writes: 
"No individuals as individuals are justified in the “objective” sense except for Jesus. Jesus suffered and died as the representative of all humanity, and was condemned by God the Father on behalf of all humanity. In Christ’s condemnation, all humanity was vicariously condemned. On the third day, Jesus rose from the dead – still as the representative of all humanity – and was, in his resurrection, thereby vindicated and justified by God the Father on behalf of all humanity. *In Christ’s justification, all humanity was vicariously justified.* *This is the completed gospel that is now proclaimed, delivered, and applied to penitent sinners,* in and through the means of grace; and that is received by them, individually, by faith alone. Again, *these basic points have always been the teaching of Confessional Lutheranism*. The terminology and the emphasis have varied, but the essential teaching of *an objective justification of Christ*, in the stead of the world and on behalf of the world, has always been held. This fact is demonstrated in these assembled quotations from Luther, Gerhard, and others."_


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Dec 13, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> So they would see God imparting saving faith to the infant in tjhe Baptism, would they see God doing that for any and all babies that it has been administered too then? They axctually get reborn again in the rite?



The LCMS puts it this way:
_"We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt. 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15).
_
_The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die."_





Dachaser said:


> You are corrct, it was law and Gospel, as they tend to make a really big distinction on those 2...


Yes, one of their well used resource is this one Walther's The Poper Distinction between Law and Gospel. 




Dachaser said:


> Concordia is their publisher, think they useLutheryn Niv study bible a lot!


Actually Concordia Publishing House (LCMS) came out with a new study bible a few years back The Lutheran Study Bible.
Since the ESV was published this Bible translation is mostly used in their books and publications.


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Dec 13, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You must be thinking of Law and Gospel......... Confessional Lutheranism (ala Walther) in the USA did make this disjunction radical, essential, and indispensable to their hermeneutic and preaching.
> .



Exactly. In their catechism they teach that the main teachings of Scripture are Law and Gospel. 

I quote from the catechism from the LCMS:
_Q. 6 What basic distinction must we keep in mind in order to understand the Bible?
A. We must sharply distinguish between the Law and the Gospel in the Bible.

Q. 7. What does God teach and do in the Law?
A. In the Law God commands good works of thought, word and deed and condemns and punishes sin.

Q.8. What does God teach and do in the Gospel?
A. In the Gospel, the good news of our salvation in Jesus Christ, God gives forgiveness, faith, life and the power to please Him with good works.

_The catechism of the WELS teaches it in a similar way. This is also how they say a pastor should preach: first the law to condemn the sinner and show him his sin, then the gospel to show the sinner his saviour, and then the law again to teach the saved sinner how he should live the new life.


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 14, 2016)

ReformedInSweden said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > So they would see 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?
> ...



I don't think it's inconsistent, per se. In Lutheranism "objective justification" is the notion that what Jesus accomplished made salvation effectively and potentially possible for all of creation. It's like saying that on account of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution every American has the ability/right to own a gun... that doesn't mean every American will actually own a gun. Or, another analogy, its like someone purchased a gift for you, but the gift isn't yours unless it's delievered and received (i.e. when you open the gift). By virtue of the Christ, salvation has been earned for the whole world... that doesn't mean everyone will be saved. 

This is where the idea of "subjective justificaiton" comes into play--which is where issues of individual salvation are addressed, election, etc. This is where, in faith, one receives the gift of what Christ already purchased. It occurs, here, on account of God's election, the working of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace, and is apprehended by faith. 

In other words, for Lutherans salvation/justification involves both the purchasing of the gift (Calvary) and the receiving of the gift (via the Means of Grace, apprehended by faith alone).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2016)

Sounds like they have a dose of Karl Barth, in that both see God election basically covering all sinners, and up to us to have God cancel that free gift towards us!

Is that whythey hold to loss of salvation, as God honors free will to finally reject the free gift?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2016)

That Bible would still be the Niv study notes, adopted for them, but now in the ESV ?


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Dec 14, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> That Bible would still be the Niv study notes, adopted for them, but now in the ESV ?


No, the notes in the Lutheran Study Bible  http://www.cph.org/t-tlsb.aspx  are completely new as far as I understand.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2016)

ReformedInSweden said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > That Bible would still be the Niv study notes, adopted for them, but now in the ESV ?
> ...



That's correct. I've glanced through the LSB at my library and while I didn't compare them with the NIV Study, they are different (and probably better, since the latter is marred by being connected with anything NIV).


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Sounds like they have a dose of Karl Barth, in that both see God election basically covering all sinners, and up to us to have God cancel that free gift towards us!
> 
> Is that whythey hold to loss of salvation, as God honors free will to finally reject the free gift?



Or Barth has a dose of Lutheranism (since Melanchton and others predated Barth).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 14, 2016)

TheologiaCrucis said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Ryan,

Thank you for your perspective!

I'm wondering what you think of the claim that it was Melanchthon who convinced Luther not to unite with the Reformed Churches, and that his motivation for doing this was ecclesio-political, i.e., that doing so would prevent a future reunification with Rome, should one be eventually negotiated.

I'm not at all trying to paint Melanchthon in a bad light; the above is what I've heard (I think it was from Dr. Sproul, but don't quote me on that).

I hope my question isn't too far off-topic.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 14, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> 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.



Michael,

May I suggest that you set apart some time to make a serious study of Reformed principles of worship vs. the principles found in Lutheranism and similar communions?

Have you done much reading/listening/study on the regulative principle of worship vs. the normative principle?


----------



## Toasty (Jan 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> 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?



This is from the LCMS website, which is located here: http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine#baptism

*QUESTION: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?*

*ANSWER:* Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart.

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.

This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Parents and sponsors of a baptized child bear the responsibility of teaching this child God's Word so that the child's faith may remain alive and grow (Matt. 28:18-20).

Confirmation is a time-honored church tradition (not required by God's Word, but we believe useful nonetheless) in which the child baptized as an infant is given the opportunity to confess for himself or herself the faith that he or she was unable to confess as an infant.

Faith is not “created” at confirmation, but it is rather confessed for all to hear so that the church can join and rejoice in this public confession, which has its roots in the faith which God Himself created in Baptism.


----------



## Daniel M. (Jan 6, 2017)

For those of you like me who are Dr. John Gerstner fans, he deals with this at length in lectures 19-23 of _Handout Church History_, a free teaching series available on Ligonier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toasty (Jan 6, 2017)

How would Lutherans explain Acts 4:27-28 which teach that Herod and Gentiles and the peoples of Israel did whatever God predestined them to do?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 7, 2017)

Toasty said:


> This is from the LCMS website, which is located here: http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine#baptism
> 
> *QUESTION: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?*
> 
> ...


 Isthere a difference bewteenthen God giving/producing saving faith in babies, and God saving infants who die?


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Jan 9, 2017)

Lutherans distinguish between objective justification (Christ accomplishing salvation for all on the cross) and subjective justification (receiving the benefits of the cross by faith). This is why Lutherans often object to limited atonement... Though I think either side is responding to a bit of a caricature of the other in this debate. What Lutherans mean is that the cross itself did not exclude anyone even though by God's election some are actually saved as opposed to others (subjective justification). That Lutherans operate with this distinction (one that even many Lutherans do not understand) is what often confuses their soteriological debates with the Reformed. 

The Baptism question.... Keep in mind that Lutherans view the sacraments like a visual Word of God that has efficacy like the proclaimed Word can affect hearts and minds. God works through baptism... But one is not saved by the mere act of having been baptized. In his Large Catechism Luther said the absence of baptism condemns no one, but the rejection of it does. 

The presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a more complicated matter. First, in spite of common depictions, Lutherans never use the word consubstantiation to describe their view. That is because the word itself uses the very categories of Aristolte that Luther objected the Papists had used to dogmatize transubstantiation. For Luther the very body and blood of Christ was present in some mysterious sense... Which is what he meant by "in, with and under" (words Westminster later rejects on account of how later Lutherans used the language). Luther also affirmed however the language Melanchthon employed in the Variata of the Augsburg Confession that the bread and wine exhibit (exhibere) the body and blood of Christ... And Calvin signed on to this revised Lutheran confession. It should be noted that by "spiritual presence" Calvin meant not the manner of presence but the means... That Christ is present by means of the Holy Spirit. Luther affirmed such presence more in accordance with the second person of the Trinity likening the words "this is my body" to the imperatives spoken at creation..words that accomplish what they say. 

Lutherans have no official bible translation though the latest lectionary in the LCMS employs the ESV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Jan 9, 2017)

Toasty said:


> How would Lutherans explain Acts 4:27-28 which teach that Herod and Gentiles and the peoples of Israel did whatever God predestined them to do?


Lutherans affirm predestination and the sovereignty of God's acts in history.


----------

