Lutherans: practical antinomians?

[arapahoepark]

So I don't want to paint with a broad brush but, I am just curious, in terms of practical theology are Lutherans functional antinomians? I understand that their confessions use the third use of the law yet, in my limited reading and interactions, the Christian life seems hardly mentioned if at all. When it is, it seems that only overcoming the feelings guilt and shame (as opposed to mortification) is the goal. It has also seemed that the means of grace of the Lord's Supper, Baptism, even listening to the sermon, are sufficient for sanctification while introspection is frowned upon. Again, these are things I have gleaned from my own limited reading. Perhaps, I am reading some wrong Lutherans. And I outside of Lutheran schools, I rarely hear about them despite having a much larger population than the Reformed. Perhaps, its due to my (our?) Insulation. What are your thoughts?

 

[Theoretical]

Lutheranism is typically pretty contained and keeps a low profile. Much of that is the legacy of the 2 world wars and how bad it got to be to be German. If the Dutch had been the Monster Nazis trying to conquer the world, the Dutch Reformed would have similarly gone scarce and low key.

I almost joined the Missouri Synod back in college and still have a high respect for them. Given the choice between a meh to progressive PCA and a confessional Missouri synod, I'd go with the Missouri Synod even though I'd not be able to commune. Much like how Groucho Marx once said that he'd never join a club that'd have him as a member, you'd never want to go to a Lutheran church that would let a confessional Calvinist commune. That's a good sign they're confessionally mushy if they do.

This is a church the next time I'm in Fredericksburg I'd likely attend since the PCA 40 miles away looks weak and the "reformed baptist" church in town looks to have gone straight fundy Baptist. https://resurrectionfbg.org/. This is likely a VERY good church based on the website and who they affiliate with. Issues Etc is serious confessional Lutheran talk radio, and churches don't advertise it lightly.

With sermons, a lot of times they're shorter and just focused on the law/gospel hermeneutic. Typically, they'll be based on one of the lectionary readings for the day. What I've gathered is that a lot of the more expositional stuff we'd associate with a good sermon would come out in a pastor-led Bible class before/after the service. That'd also be where you'd be more likely to hear 3rd use of the law applications.

I would say that the 1517 group that's pretty prominent and kind of being the New Calvinists for Lutherans has similar problems to the Young Restless Reformed, including in some dodgy or more antimonian directions. Classical Lutherans like Gene Edward Veith or John Warwick Montgomery are NOT. Rod Rosenbladt's kind of right on the edge but not over it and is generally sound. Many of the latter's disciples do verge into a more antinomian stream.

Re: introspection, there's a whole contingent of them that are the Pietists who are every bit as angsty and introspective as the Methodists can ever be. Pietism is very much the precursor to and inspiration for Methodist piety that would later hit the British Isles and that's very prominent in Evangelicalism.

Re: the Christian life, the KEY thing with Lutherans, is whether and how much they talk about vocation. That's one of the key hinges, A Lutheran that's got a robust doctrine of vocation will generally be on the sound side in matters of personal sanctification, even if they don't talk about it in the same way vis a vis the commandments. Luther's Freedom of a Christian or Gene Veith's books on God at Work and Loving the Lord with All Your Mind are good examples.

ELCA = Worse PCUSA
NALC = ECO to EPC (I think - it's new and a breakoff from the ELCA)
LCMS ranges from EPC without women pastors and few overt Lutheran trappings to conservative OPC, The church I linked above would be analogous to a fairly conservative OPC, but probably not the strictest.
WELS ranges from ultraconservative OPC to Micropresbyterian if Microspresby had 400K members.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I've attended a WELS church when I'm far from any Reformed Churches and they're not antinomian at all. In some respects they can be legalist. For example, WELS members aren't supposed to have any Christian fellowship with non-WELS, including prayer.

 

[yeutter]

Lutheran and Reformed understandings of the uses of the Law of God are similar. Lutherans make much of the distinction between Law and Gospel. Lutherans say that all Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law which calls men to faith and repentance, and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for His sake, the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal, or when, in the Gospel, Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal. Lutherans define the Gospel as the proclamation of the good news of Christ crucified for sinners.

Confessional Lutherans distinguish three uses of the Law of God, though they may put them in a different order.

1. The Law of God shows God's righteousness, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness. The Law of God confronts man with his sin and points him to Christ.

2. The Law of God functions by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in the law. The Law of God is part of God's general revelation, for unbelievers as well as believers. When we think of this use of the law to restrain sin we see that for the believer it plays a role in calling men to Christ. For the unbeliever, this use of the Law of God promotes civic righteousness.

3. The Law of God admonishes believers and urges them on in well-doing. This use of the Law of God is solely for believers, teaching the way of righteousness.

Most of the Lutherans, that I know, are not antinomian. The confessional Lutheran bodies, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod [ https://www.lcms.org ], the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod [ https://wels.net ], The Evangelical Lutheran Synod [ https://els.org/ ], The Church of the Lutheran Confession [ https://clclutheran.org ], The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America [ https://eldona.org/ ] are not antinomian.

Some Lutheran theologians, especially some pietist Lutheran theologians, believe that the third use of the Law leads to, or encourages a form of legalism and is an implicit denial of sola fide.

Conservative Pietist Lutheran Church federations include: The Association of Free Lutheran Congregations [ https://www.aflc.org ], the Church of the Lutheran Brethren [ https://clba.org ], the Apostolic Lutheran Church of America [ https://www.apostoliclutheran.org ]

Though they deny it, many of the pietist Lutherans express themselves in ways that sound antinomian. Some of the pietist Lutheran Church federations have their roots in the Laestadian Lutheran revival in the Sami [Lapland] region of Finland, Norway and to a lesser degree Sweden. Some other pietist Lutheran Church federations can be identified by their use of 1921 edition of the Starck's Prayer Book.

I don't now of any English language Lutheran liturgy that recites the Ten Commandments.

​

 

[Taylor]

For example, WELS members aren't supposed to have any Christian fellowship with non-WELS, including prayer.

That's remarkable. What's the reasoning for this?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

...WELS members aren't supposed to have any Christian fellowship with non-WELS, including prayer.

There's a WELS church down the street from me.

It brands itself as a generally evangelical Christian church. Their affiliation with WELS is not highly promoted.

They definitely do NOT hold to what you just said.

CrossWalk Church

CrossWalk Church is a community where all come to know the grace of God, strive to live new, and to share the love of Jesus. We are committed to teaching the Bible's words and promises so that the Holy Spirit will transform people into fully-developed followers of Christ.

cwlk.church

"Starting with a single service and about 35 people in the fall of 2004, CrossWalk has grown to two services with nearly 500 people worshipping each Sunday. The core of CrossWalk's vision is to be a "church for unchurched people." That means that we're all about meeting people where they're at. "

There's a lot that their website doesn't mention, but Christians in the community are aware of. They are most definitely willing to have Christian fellowship with non-WELS churches, Christians, and institutions.

(For what it's worth, I do consider this church to be as solid as you can possibly expect from a generic evangelic community church.)

Are you sure you don't mean LCMS? I've heard that said about LCMS but was under the impression WELS was more open.

 

[hammondjones]

I can't speak to modern Lutherans, but of Luther himself, at least his early sermons, I have read a bit.

He does urge good works (in their proper place). But he also thought those works should arise spontaneously, even saying that if we think about the law and do a good work, we are acting under the law. Which I take as a difference from the last sentence of wcf 19.6 "So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace."

Now, what to what degree he adjusted his language later in life, or to what extent his personal views trickle down to Lutherans in general today, I don't know. But, I think it speaks to the bifurcation mentioned above.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

There's a WELS church down the street from me.

It brands itself as a generally evangelical Christian church. Their affiliation with WELS is not highly promoted.

They definitely do NOT hold to what you just said.

It's an official position of the denomination. This is from their denominational website. Related to that is that only WELS members and members of their Swedish sister denomination can commune with them in the Lord's Supper. I'm from a small town in Wisconsin, so the WELS there is about as WELS as WELS gets, and we had a member of our presbyterian Church that was former WELS, and he wouldn't sing in the public school choir in High School in case there was a song of some religious significance, because then he would be singing religious songs with unbelievers, which is kind of like praying with them.
In other respects they're kind, godly folk, and not too legalistic, especially as far as things like alcohol are concerned. But the prayer thing is very weird.

 

[retroGRAD3]

It's an official position of the denomination. This is from their denominational website. Related to that is that only WELS members and members of their Swedish sister denomination can commune with them in the Lord's Supper. I'm from a small town in Wisconsin, so the WELS there is about as WELS as WELS gets, and we had a member of our presbyterian Church that was former WELS, and he wouldn't sing in the public school choir in High School in case there was a song of some religious significance, because then he would be singing religious songs with unbelievers, which is kind of like praying with them.
In other respects they're kind, godly folk, and not too legalistic, especially as far as things like alcohol are concerned. But the prayer thing is very weird.

I can confirm I have experienced this in Wisconsin as well. I will also say though that not every individual WELS Lutheran agrees with the stance.

 

[arapahoepark]

What of the notion that "God doesn't need your works but, your neighbor does." I see that in a fair amount of Lutherans with little context. It's almost a saying.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is an old blog post of mine where I discuss the charge of Lutheranism in the context of Dichotomy vs Distinctions. Lutherans tend to dichotomize Law and Grace so hard they miss the mark. I would say the same thing concerning Westminster West's younger generation as opposed to their older forefathers.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...-not-about-distinction-it-is-about-dichotomy/

May 19, 2014
When I was a seminary student (1984-87) I only occasionally heard about a “law/gospel” distinction and then it as never explained to me. I learned about the substance of the distinction 10 years later doing my doctoral work. No one ever explained how it related to preaching until 1998. I had been preaching for a decade by the time I had any clear idea how important it was for preaching. I didn’t want to be a moralist in the pulpit but I was. I knew I was doing something wrong in my preaching but I couldn’t figure out what it was. I don’t think I was alone. When I first started writing about the distinction several years later I was roundly attacked as a “Lutheran.” A decade or more later it still happens. I still regularly read that the law/gospel distinction is “Lutheran.”
The law/gospel distinction is, it is argued, Lutheran.
RSC

The author of the above comment either doesn’t fully appreciate what he has been told by some people or he just doesn’t understand the situation still after many have tried to explain it to him. He keeps addressing this Law / Gospel issue but seems to refuse to deal with certain specifics when they are shown to him.

He is the commander of his ship (blog). So when he addresses a topic he is in control of the material and terminology he chooses to expose others to. For some reason, when others have tried to explain to him that it isn’t the distinctions that we are troubled by but the issue of dichotomizing Law and Gospel it seems to fall upon deaf ears. He seems to keep hearing an incorrect charge. Some are probably making other charges that he would rather answer. therefore he can deflect away from this one about distinction. He claims that it is about distinctions but that is too broad of an accusation. It seems he obfuscates the issue by constantly making reference that others are calling him Lutheran because he makes a Law / Gospel distinction. Dear Dr. Clark, It isn’t about the distinctions, it is that you seem to be dichotomizing Law and Gospel as the Lutherans do. That is what we are having a problem with. It isn’t about how they are distinct. We acknowledge that they are distinct subjects. We don’t believe the Law is set in the Form of a Covenant of Works in many situations where you see it is. We do not see that Law and Gospel necessarily oppose each other. The Law and Gospel sweetly comply.

He is the commander of his ship (blog). So when he addresses a topic he is in control of the material and terminology he chooses to expose others to. For some reason, when others have tried to explain to him that it isn’t the distinctions that we are troubled by but the issue of dichotomizing Law and Gospel it seems to fall upon deaf ears....
The Charge of Lutheranism is not about distinction, it is about dichotomy
Read Bavinck and hear him....

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I ended up making a summary blog connecting all of the Antinomian posts I blogged.

Tullian Tchividjian, Michael Horton, David Murray / Depraved Christianity / Antinomianism​

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ividjian-depraved-christianity-antinomianism/

 

[RamistThomist]

What of the notion that "God doesn't need your works but, your neighbor does." I see that in a fair amount of Lutherans with little context. It's almost a saying.

Probably means your works don't add anything to your justification, but they do help your neighbor.

 

[jwright82]

Officially confessional Lutheranism is not anti-nomian but some Lutheran thinkers in the last century went that way. Geerhard Forde did as well as "Radical Lutheranism". That may be what was at stake in the "law/gospel" controversy at Concordia seminary last century. Basically, if I remember correctly, it said "nothing offends the gospel" because the gospel is an equal opportunity message. So yes women pastors offend the law but since nothing can offend the gospel, which is more important than law, its ok to have women pastors. Radical Lutheranism seemed, I'm no expert here, to reduce law done to its accusatory function only.
But you cannot read the "Book of Concord" or Lutheran Orthodoxy as being anti-nomian in any way shape or form. As far as practical anti-nomians I don't know but I highly doubt they would tolerate grievous sin in their churches. Why oppose the "Radical Lutherans" than?