What do Lutherans believe?

Josiah · Dec 4, 2017

MennoSota said:
Correct my surmising.

See post 29.

Back to the issue of this thread.

Andrew · Dec 4, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Lutherans did not name themselves that ...it was the Catholics who gave them that name.

And protestants named them Roman Catholic back lol

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Lamb · Dec 4, 2017

DHoffmann said:
I got a question and forgive me because I dont know how Lutherans take it.
It's my understanding that Lutherans reject "on the jews and their lies" by Martin Luther, how do Lutherans respond when this is mentioned? it seems that his views on the jew changed toward a more antisemitic approach than his original "saving" of them... Quite curious thats all, again I apologise if this offends anyone

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Lutherans don't follow Luther.

If you look at history you'll see that Luther's beliefs changed greatly over the course of his life. During the time when he was alive the Jews were the people that Luther wanted to see converted. Did you know the Jews called Jesus a bastard? I'm not sure if the profanity filter will block that term.

Lutherans are not anti-semitic.

Josiah · Dec 4, 2017

DHoffmann said:
I got a question and forgive me because I dont know how Lutherans take it.
It's my understanding that Lutherans reject "on the jews and their lies" by Martin Luther, how do Lutherans respond when this is mentioned?

1. An extensive reply to that is found here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4707-Luther-and-the-Jews&p=117179#post117179

2. Remember, Lutherans view Luther no different than any other Christian person: a sinful bloat with opinions - some possibly right, some possibly wrong. Just like you. Just like me. That Luther said something just means he said something. I say stuff too. So do you. The normative rule in Lutheranism is not Luther. Indeed, until this year (the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation), I had not once heard his name mentioned in a sermon in a Lutheran church.

.

MennoSota · Dec 4, 2017

Josiah said:
See post 29.

Back to the issue of this thread.

I read it. Who is Norma and Norman Gustafson and what do they have to do with the discussion?

Andrew · Dec 4, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Lutherans don't follow Luther.

If you look at history you'll see that Luther's beliefs changed greatly over the course of his life. During the time when he was alive the Jews were the people that Luther wanted to see converted. Did you know the Jews called Jesus a bastard? I'm not sure if the profanity filter will block that term.

Lutherans are not anti-semitic.

I know they aren't anti-semitic, the Jew say horrible things about Jesus that disturbs us all as Christians especially for being Gods chosen people and are very blessed even to this day...

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

Confessional Lutheran said:
From what I understand ( I've only been an official Lutheran since 2013, so I'm still in the " doe- eyed convert stage," I guess), these views are meant to be binding on everybody and especially the Church leadership. www.bookofconcord.org is a fairly good resource for investigating Lutheran beliefs, as is www.lcms.org. The Brothers of John the Steadfast is a site that has some interesting blogs by various Lutherans of a Confessional bent: http://steadfastlutherans.org/.

Thanks.

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

Josiah said:
...(again, about 12 pages long - and much of that not doctrine - not to be confused with the 800 pages of the latest edition of the ever-changing and expanding RCC one) ...
As in Catholicism... I witnessed exactly the same polity in the Catholic Church. Indeed, as a layperson, when I told my Catholic pastor that I agreed with probably 95% of the official teachings of the RCC...

I'm curious to know - does explaining Lutheran teaching always depend on contrasting it with Catholic teaching?

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

What does the "under" in "under the bread and wine" mean with reference to the bread and wine of communion?

Josiah · Dec 4, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
I'm curious to know - does explaining Lutheran teaching always depend on contrasting it with Catholic teaching?

The historic reality is that most of the Lutheran Confessions were written to the Catholic Church or in direct response to statements made to Luther by the Catholic Church. Yes.... while neither Catholics or Lutherans may 'like' it, Lutheranism is evangelical catholicism, Luther was a Catholic KICKED OUT of the RC Denomination. Just as the Council of Trent was largely in response to Lutheranism, so the Lutheran Confessions are largely in response to Catholicism. At the time of the Confessions, Calvinism was not really an issue for Lutherans (or Catholics)... and the radical revolutionary groups (such as the Anabaptists) just weren't on the radar yet. LATER, Lutherans would have things to say to those groups - but that all came later than the Confessions and none of those were in any sense made equal to them. Yes, Lutheranism is largely vis-a-vis the Catholicism of that day, just as Trent is largely vis-a-vis Lutheranism.

To review....

Josiah said:
3. The Lutheran Reformation was a conservative one, quite unlike the revolutions that followed. So, Lutheranism often looks and sounds pretty Catholic. Lutheranism is more simple (for example, Luther's Catechism is 12 pages long, the 1994 edition of the RCC's Catechism is 800 pages long, although it's not an apples-to-apples comparison). Lutheranism ALLOWS a number of views (for example regarding Mary) that Catholicism MANDATES. Lutherans often conclude that the RC Denomination "says too much" and "dogmatizes too much". Lutherans affirm MYSTERY (a word they use a lot) eager to affirm what God says but willing to "let God have the last word" and to accept "tensions." Lutherans ask questions but don't appoint self alone to "answer" them and require God to agree. There is a deep sense of humility and awe in Lutheranism.

4. Luther had no intention of splitting the RC Denomination or in creating a separate denomination; he simply wanted to discuss some issues and to reform some abuses (which 500 years later, Catholics are finally admitted existed and Luther was right to note). Luther, however, did question some teachings which were not dogmas at the time (and thus could be debated) these included Papal Infallibility, Transubstantiation (rather than Real Presence), and the RCC's claim that it itself exclusively is unaccountable for its unique teachings. Later Purgatory was also questioned. And while Luther did not originally think the Gospel was contrary to the RCC's teaching, the RCC chose that to be the centerpiece of its protest of Luther and the issue over which it excommunicated Luther and split itself - Luther arguing that Jesus is the Savior and thus saves us (His works being the works which justify in the narrow sense) and the RCC now officially protesting that actually Jesus doesn't do it but rather it is a synergistic, cooperative, long-time process (continuing into Purgatory) whereby self saves self albeit with much help from the RC Denomination. Luther affirmed MUCH (indeed, the overwhelming majority) of what the RC Denomination officially taught AT THAT TIME and had few problems with Catholic customs (Latin worship and prohibiting clergy from marriage being among the few he disagreed with - neither dogmas at the time).

Questions regarding Doctrine are welcomed....

.

- Josiah

.

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

Josiah said:
1. You are REFORMED and not Lutheran so it's not TOO shocking that you disagree with some things in Lutheranism. It's mutual.

2. Both Lutherans and Reformed AGREE on the normative practice of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura"). Of course, we disagree on the arbitration of a few things according to that Rule. It's mutual. To exactly the same extent on exactly the same issues. Obviously.

3. Both Lutherans and Reformed AGREE that the norma normans is Scripture alone, but we hold our (yes different) confessions as norma normata. No difference WHATSOEVER in this sense. No Lutheran denomination on the planet in 500 years has taught that our Confessions are norma normans (or even A norma normans). Come on, my friend.....

Now, back to the topic....

- Josiah

As an aside in reply to this quote "The book of concord as well as the Roman catechism seem to be in direct conflict with Sola Scriptura." The Catholic Church does not teach or believe "sola scriptura". I imagine that Lutherans probably do teach and believe it. But this thread is about what Lutherans teach so What the Catholic Church teaches is not on topic.

Andrew · Dec 4, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
I'm curious to know - does explaining Lutheran teaching always depend on contrasting it with Catholic teaching?

Think of how the UPC views all outside denomination (as an Apostolic Church, same as yours "No salvation outside the Church") it's obvious that official doctrines of a Christian denomination will fit in everything they can to separate themselves against others... But the true followers will see the few contradictions in their church that obscure the body and wont agree with everything their church teaches, as I was consoled that "no church is perfect" you must be reminded that not all are against you. My church disagrees with all of Catholicism by their main "headlines" they I cant agree with, that the only common agreement is what hell is like, keep in mind that this is what my parents were taught in Catholic churches... fire and brimstone outside the church, so there is no agreement according to the other churches in the orthodox view.
As a brotherhood we will jab and poke each other but deep down inside we know what body we are in Christ

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

Imalive said:
Why is everyone naming themselves after some guy? I'm a Peterian. I'm a Jamesian. Oh they had no last names then.

People who gather in a church need some sort of name for their shared beliefs I guess. "Lutheran" is as good as any name. "Pentecostal" is a name too

Josiah · Dec 4, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
What does the "under" in "under the bread and wine" mean with reference to the bread and wine of communion?

Luther was reacting to the common opinion (not yet dogma) of the singular RC Denomination which it called "Transubstantiation." The comment of Luther that you note (found variously 3 and only 3 times in all his writings) was directly and solely in that context, and reveals his disagreement with the medieval, Scholastic, Western theory of Transubstantiation (made dogma after his death). It is simply a way (perhaps not the best way) to convey that the Bible is right to speak of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration and that we are wrong to deny the reality of such (or dance around it by infusing silly, wrong, pagan philosophies such as Aristotle's odd and wrong theory of Accidents.

Both Catholics and Lutherans - BOTH, PASSIONATELY - did and still do stress the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, there with all the blessings of Christ. But while Lutherans were (and are) passionate to embrace and promote and confess Real Presence, the RC Denomination (uniquely and individually) made their Eucharistic Dogma that of Transubstantiation (a couple of years after Luther's death - but the view had been around as opinion for about 300 years before that). Luther rejected it as unbiblical, unnecessary and more to the point: destroying any reason to believe Real Presence. After all, if the words of the Eucharistic texts are not all fully and literally true.... if much of what is stated after the Consecration isn't really and fully "there" then there's no textual reason to believe that Christ is there and that the texts are right about that. Luther could have cared less about the bread and wine..... he wished to protect the Body and Blood from the very dangerous way the RCC was pushing aside the words of the text, insisting the words don't mean what they say, that what IS after the Consecration actually isn't really.

- Josiah

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

DHoffmann said:
I got a question and forgive me because I dont know how Lutherans take it.
It's my understanding that Lutherans reject "on the jews and their lies" by Martin Luther, how do Lutherans respond when this is mentioned? it seems that his views on the jew changed toward a more antisemitic approach than his original "saving" of them... Quite curious thats all, again I apologise if this offends anyone

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

That's a reasonable question but I'd hazard the guess that Lutherans do not need to agree with Martin Luther's opinions on Jews. I do not think that Martin Luther's opinions on Jews are part of the "Book of Concord". If it is then I hope one of our Lutheran brethren will correct my statement.

Josiah · Dec 4, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
That's a reasonable question but I'd hazard the guess that Lutherans do not need to agree with Martin Luther's opinions on Jews. I do not think that Martin Luther's opinions on Jews are part of the "Book of Concord". If it is then I hope one of our Lutheran brethren will correct my statement.

See post #44.

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

DHoffmann said:
Think of how the UPC views all outside denomination (as an Apostolic Church, same as yours "No salvation outside the Church") it's obvious that official doctrines of a Christian denomination will fit in everything they can to separate themselves against others... But the true followers will see the few contradictions in their church that obscure the body and wont agree with everything their church teaches, as I was consoled that "no church is perfect" you must be reminded that not all are against you. My church disagrees with all of Catholicism by their main "headlines" they I cant agree with, that the only common agreement is what hell is like, keep in mind that this is what my parents were taught in Catholic churches... fire and brimstone outside the church, so there is no agreement according to the other churches in the orthodox view.
As a brotherhood we will jab and poke each other but deep down inside we know what body we are in Christ

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

I guess that "outside the Church there is no salvation" is biblical while "outside the UPC" probably isn't. I am being slightly facetious. I wonder what Lutherans say about the idea expressed in "outside the church there is no salvation"?

MoreCoffee · Dec 4, 2017

Josiah said:
Luther was reacting to the common opinion (not yet dogma) of the singular RC Denomination which it called "Transubstantiation." The comment of Luther that you note (found variously 3 and only 3 times in all his writings) was directly and solely in that context, and reveals his disagreement with the medieval, Scholastic, Western theory of Transubstantiation (made dogma after his death). It is simply a way (perhaps not the best way) to convey that the Bible is right to speak of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration and that we are wrong to deny the reality of such (or dance around it by infusing silly, wrong, pagan philosophies such as Aristotle's odd and wrong theory of Accidents.

Both Catholics and Lutherans - BOTH, PASSIONATELY - did and still do stress the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, there with all the blessings of Christ. But while Lutherans were (and are) passionate to embrace and promote and confess Real Presence, the RC Denomination (uniquely and individually) made their Eucharistic Dogma that of Transubstantiation (a couple of years after Luther's death - but the view had been around as opinion for about 300 years before that). Luther rejected it as unbiblical, unnecessary and more to the point: destroying any reason to believe Real Presence. After all, if the words of the Eucharistic texts are not all fully and literally true.... if much of what is stated after the Consecration isn't really and fully "there" then there's no textual reason to believe that Christ is there and that the texts are right about that. Luther could have cared less about the bread and wine..... he wished to protect the Body and Blood from the very dangerous way the RCC was pushing aside the words of the text, insisting the words don't mean what they say, that what IS after the Consecration actually isn't really.

- Josiah

But what does "under" mean in the statement "under the bread and wine" ?

Do Lutherans teach this "much of what is stated after the Consecration isn't really and fully "there" then there's no textual reason to believe that Christ is there and that the texts are right about that"?

atpollard · Dec 4, 2017

Lämmchen said:
Lutherans did not name themselves that ...it was the Catholics who gave them that name.

While off topic, I am pretty sure that Calvinists and Arminians did not get to choose their names either.
The irony is not lost on me that even "Christians" called themselves followers of The Way, it was someone else that named us Christians (little Christs).

Josiah · Dec 4, 2017

MoreCoffee said:
But what does "under" mean in the statement "under the bread and wine" ?

Luther was reacting to the common opinion (not yet dogma) of the singular RC Denomination which it called "Transubstantiation." The comment of Luther that you note (found variously 3 and only 3 times in all his writings) was directly and solely in that context, and reveals his disagreement with the medieval, Scholastic, Western theory of Transubstantiation (made dogma after his death). It is simply a way (perhaps not the best way) to convey that the Bible is right to speak of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration and that we are wrong to deny the reality of such (or dance around it by infusing silly, wrong, pagan philosophies such as Aristotle's odd and wrong theory of Accidents.

Both Catholics and Lutherans - BOTH, PASSIONATELY - did and still do stress the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, there with all the blessings of Christ. But while Lutherans were (and are) passionate to embrace and promote and confess Real Presence, the RC Denomination (uniquely and individually) made their Eucharistic Dogma that of Transubstantiation (a couple of years after Luther's death - but the view had been around as opinion for about 300 years before that). Luther rejected it as unbiblical, unnecessary and more to the point: destroying any reason to believe Real Presence. After all, if the words of the Eucharistic texts are not all fully and literally true.... if much of what is stated after the Consecration isn't really and fully "there" then there's no textual reason to believe that Christ is there and that the texts are right about that. Luther could have cared less about the bread and wine..... he wished to protect the Body and Blood from the very dangerous way the RCC was pushing aside the words of the text, insisting the words don't mean what they say, that what IS after the Consecration actually isn't really.

Do Lutherans teach this "much of what is stated after the Consecration isn't really and fully "there" then there's no textual reason to believe that Christ is there and that the texts are right about that"?

Of course not, but Luther thought that the (then just an opinion - not yet dogma) medieval Scholastic theory of Transubstantiation endangered Real Presence by teaching that "is" doesn't mean "is" and that much of what follows the "is" well isn't. To Luther, this medieval theory endangered Real Presence. Luther believed to uphold it, we need to accept what Scripture states: Is = is, body = body, bread = bread, blood = blood, wine = wine. Otherwise, if "is" doesn't mean is.... if what comes after the Consecration well.... isn't (fully anyway) then why believe Christ's Body and Blood IS there?

.

What do Lutherans believe?

simul justus et peccator

Matt 18:15

God's Lil Lamb

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Matt 18:15

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Matt 18:15

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator