What do Lutherans believe?

[Andrew]

All these fancy words and such you're using is starting to make my head spin a bit Patrick.
(Yeah Patrick, explain to us in the common tongue so we know what you're saying because I'm stupid Patrick)
Yeah Patrick, get with the program Patrick

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Tigger]

Consubstantiation is NOT what Lutherans believe. Lutherans believe in a sacramental union. See the Lutheran Confessions where you will not find any term of consubstantiation.<snip>

Although virtually synonymous, I prefer mystical union being that it ties the incarnation, a HS indewelled believer and the consecrated communion elements all together.

 

[Lamb]

All these fancy words and such you're using is starting to make my head spin a bit Patrick.
(Yeah Patrick, explain to us in the common tongue so we know what you're saying because I'm stupid Patrick)
Yeah Patrick, get with the program Patrick

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

The easiest solution...just trust in Jesus' words "This is my body" "This is my blood".

 

[user1234]

The easiest solution...just trust in Jesus' words "This is my body" "This is my blood".

Eww, no, if it impies canibalism, no, Ive tried, but I cant believe that.

The lamb was slain. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
When ppl were talking earlier about the lamb at the Seder, they mentioned it was a memorial...when God saw the blood, He passed over, right? (A remembrance of that past, one time act)

We as christians also know it was prophetic...not just looking back to Gods mercy, but pointing forward to the Lamb of God who would come to take away the sin of the world.

It was not so much about the eating of the lamb ... It was the slaying of the lamb, the shed blood and death, the sacrifice of the lamb that mattered.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
If there was no lamb (on the platter) at the last supper, as someone said earlier, the Lamb was still there, because Jesus was with them.

As all the previous times prophecied towards the Lamb to come, this was the last one prophesying to it, as Jesus was about to be slain. (He still was with them, so it was still a prophecy)

So when He said take and eat, take and drink, He wasn't referring to literally eating and drinking Him, He was saying His body would be broken, His blood would be shed, 'the lamb slain', for the sins of the world...ON THE CROSS.

Just as they kept the passover in remembrance (a symbolic memorial/celebration) of the one time act of deliverance (back in Exodus),
we now share the bread and wine in remembrance of the one-time sacrifice of Jesus, slain for our sins.

It's not about us eating and drinking, it's about Jesus breaking and shedding His blood ... dying, for us.
It's a memorial/celebration.
Just like the passover...It's symbolic.
Beautifully symbolic.

 

[Albion]

The point that should not be brushed aside is that it is not the case that the Christian must choose between one or the other of the most extreme positions that have been discussed on this and other threads--that in Holy Communion we partake of the literal (physical) body of Christ OR, at the other end of the possibilities, that it is entirely and only symbolic!

 

[user1234]

The point that should not be brushed aside is that it is not the case that the Christian must choose between one or the other of the most extreme positions that have been discussed on this and other threads--that in Holy Communion we partake of the literal (physical) body of Christ OR, at the other end of the possibilities, that it is entirely and only symbolic!

Who says the beautiful symbolism that the bread and wine represents Jesus body and blood is an extreme position, let alone a most extreme position?
Pretty much seems to be the right position to alot of people, including Jesus, imo, as I see it in scripture.

 

[Albion]

Who says the beautiful symbolism that the bread and wine represents Jesus body and blood is an extreme position, let alone a most extreme position?

I did, Snerfle. And it's undeniably true.

But I do not say that in order to condemn them; they're simply at the opposite ends of the Christian spectrum when it comes to this particular issue. Take another look at the list of the "5 or 6" major denominational POVs on that other thread where I outlined them. It is post #6 on the thread, "Communion: four views."

Pretty much seems to be the right position to alot of people, including Jesus, imo, as I see it in scripture.

"Seems" is correct; and not everything that "seems" to be true actually is.



.

 

[user1234]

I did, Snerfle. And it's undeniably true.

But I do not say that in order to condemn them; they're simply at the opposite ends of the Christian spectrum when it comes to this particular issue. Take another look at the list of the "5 or 6" major denominational POVs on that other thread where I outlined them. It is post #6 on the thread, "Communion: four views."


"Seems" is correct; and not everything that "seems" to be true actually is.



.

No, not undeniably true. Just your opinion, which youre entitled to.

And I said seems to be, bc so many ppl here voice their opinion as if its cold hard fact with no room for another opinion, and when ive been accused of doing that in the past, Ive taken all kinds of flak for it, being called names and told I wasnt nice, etc, so I thought Id be a little less insistent and dogmatic about it this time, since so many ppl act offended at times on certain issues.
But it seems saying it seems isnt acceptable either, lol, so yes, then, I will agree with your suggestion that not everything that seems true actually is.
Like, theres a way that SEEMS right to a man, (like religious works and trying to earn ones way into salvation and Gods favor, etc, instead of resting in the finished work of Christ) but okay, whatever.

So now, is it like when it SEEMS like bread and wine, but it actually isnt?
Or that it SEEMS like the actual real presence of body and blood but it actually isn't?
Or one of those extreme positions like that? :glasses:

 

[Lamb]

Eww, no, if it impies canibalism, no, Ive tried, but I cant believe that.

The lamb was slain. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
When ppl were talking earlier about the lamb at the Seder, they mentioned it was a memorial...when God saw the blood, He passed over, right? (A remembrance of that past, one time act)

We as christians also know it was prophetic...not just looking back to Gods mercy, but pointing forward to the Lamb of God who would come to take away the sin of the world.

It was not so much about the eating of the lamb ... It was the slaying of the lamb, the shed blood and death, the sacrifice of the lamb that mattered.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
If there was no lamb (on the platter) at the last supper, as someone said earlier, the Lamb was still there, because Jesus was with them.

As all the previous times prophecied towards the Lamb to come, this was the last one prophesying to it, as Jesus was about to be slain. (He still was with them, so it was still a prophecy)

So when He said take and eat, take and drink, He wasn't referring to literally eating and drinking Him, He was saying His body would be broken, His blood would be shed, 'the lamb slain', for the sins of the world...ON THE CROSS.

Just as they kept the passover in remembrance (a symbolic memorial/celebration) of the one time act of deliverance (back in Exodus),
we now share the bread and wine in remembrance of the one-time sacrifice of Jesus, slain for our sins.

It's not about us eating and drinking, it's about Jesus breaking and shedding His blood ... dying, for us.
It's a memorial/celebration.
Just like the passover...It's symbolic.
Beautifully symbolic.

If you read what I had written previously you would see that Lutherans don't believe in cannibalism.

It seems a lot of our readers here aren't reading what Lutherans are writing about their beliefs!

 

[Lamb]

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord from this link of the Book of Concord:

6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

Capernaitic refers to the people in Capernaum that thought the teaching of Real Presence meant cannibalism...it is not.

Here is the post that was overlooked by some on here. Please read it again.

 

[Josiah]

No, not undeniably true. Just your opinion, which youre entitled to.

And I said seems to be, bc so many ppl here voice their opinion as if its cold hard fact with no room for another opinion, and when ive been accused of doing that in the past, Ive taken all kinds of flak for it, being called names and told I wasnt nice, etc, so I thought Id be a little less insistent and dogmatic about it this time, since so many ppl act offended at times on certain issues.
But it seems saying it seems isnt acceptable either, lol, so yes, then, I will agree with your suggestion that not everything that seems true actually is.
Like, theres a way that SEEMS right to a man, (like religious works and trying to earn ones way into salvation and Gods favor, etc, instead of resting in the finished work of Christ) but okay, whatever.

So now, is it like when it SEEMS like bread and wine, but it actually isnt?
Or that it SEEMS like the actual real presence of body and blood but it actually isn't?
Or one of those extreme positions like that? :glasses:

The defining word is "is." Not "is not but misleadingly seems like it."


This thread is not a debate thread about Holy Communion (there is a current, active thread about that) but what Lutheranism teaches. Lutheranism teaches what the church for 1500 years always taught: That what Jesus said and Paul penned is what they mean and what is true. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Bread" = bread. "Wine" = wine. That's it. That's all. Body is. Blood is. Bread is. Wine is. Is has to do with reality, presence, being. "Is" doesn't mean "phyically changed from one reality to a different reality via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And "is" typically doesn't mean "is NOT but misleadingly SEEMS like it."


It's called "Real Presence" and it was universal view of Christians until some medieval Roman Catholics invented "Transubstantiation" (and that single denomination dogmatized that view in 1551) and until Zwingli came along about the same time with his "Not REALLY present" view.


Now, of course, people have QUESTIONS. Just as we do with the two inseparable full natures of Christ or with the Trinity. And that's okay. But just because we have questions doesn't make what Jesus said and Paul penned wrong, and doesn't mean self must appoint self to correct Jesus and Paul and get them out of error. For 15 centuries, Christians referred to this as "The MYSTERY of Real Presence" and that's because it's mystery. We don't know how this "fits" physics (any more than we know how the Two Natures of Christ or the Three Persons of the Trinity "fit" physics). But that's not God's problem and doesn't mean God is wrong - only that God didn't answer our questions. Scripture command us to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." It doesn't command us to be "Correcters of God getting Him out of trouble and making Him make sense." We are called to faith and obedience, not pride and correcting Jesus from His error and misleading teachings.


You, as a non-Lutheran, may not agree with this acceptance but this thread is not about what non-Lutheran denominations hold and teach.


I hope that helps convey the Lutheran position....


Thank you.


Questions about other teachings?





- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

]

*↑According to the opinion of the Lutheran denomination, as the thread title suggests, not as cold hard universal facts, but opinions, and not that everyone universally must accept as facts.
(Just clearing that up so we're all in agreement here) Peace.

 

[Josiah]

↑According to the opinion of the Lutheran denomination, as the thread title suggests

Yup. It's what this thread is about. MoreCoffee created a thread because wanted to know what Lutheranism teaches. And that's what this thread is about.

OF COURSE, some disagree with what Lutheranism teaches about some things (is that surprising, is that shocking?). If you want to debate Real Presence, go here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical



Do you have any other questions about Lutheran teachings?



.

 

[Albion]

This is true--and a valid point to make. That is to say, the thread is about what Lutherans believe, not about various beliefs on the same topic.

However, the 'rub' is that Josiah's claim is not borne out by the Lutheran churches.

As was shown, we can check with the leading Lutheran denominations/churches and agencies in this country and find that their websites do indeed explain the church's beliefs in the "in, with, and (or) under" fashion, not as "Is means Is, period."

 

[Josiah]

As was shown, we can check with the leading Lutheran denominations/churches and agencies in this country and find that their websites do indeed explain the church's beliefs in the "in, with, and (or) under" fashion, not as "Is means Is, period."

As has been repeatedly shown, the three times in Luther's life when he used the words "under" or "in" in reference to the bread and wine are not - in any sense - an attempt to "explain" anything or deny anything in the text. I agree his use - three times in his life - of these two words rather than the zillions of times he simply said "is" was not best, but that does not mean Luther meant to deny or explain away the miracle, the Mystery of Real Presence.

As has been repeatedly shown, Luther in these 3 occasions clearly was writing in the milieu of a common (but not yet dogmatic) theory which ALL his readers would have been taught: Transubstantiation. This view denies that the bread and wine are present along with the body and blood in any full and usual sense (necessitated because they changed the word "is" to "undergoing a physical change via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents). Luther, addressing the view all his readers had been taught since childhood, is simply stressing the bread and wine are there, TOO. Irrelevant perhaps, but there. I agree "with" is a better word than "in" and "under" but that changes nothing. All this has been shown to you, friend... repeatedly.


Lutheranism teaches what the church for 1500 years always taught: That what Jesus said and Paul penned is what they mean and what is true. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Bread" = bread. "Wine" = wine. That's it. That's all. Body is. Blood is. Bread is. Wine is. Is has to do with reality, presence, being. "Is" doesn't mean "phyically changed from one reality to a different reality via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And "is" typically doesn't mean "is NOT but misleadingly SEEMS like it." Body is there - so is Blood - so is Wine - so is Bread. They are all "IS." IS. We probably can say "the bread is there with the wine with the body with the blood" since the IS applies to all of them. I agree the 3 times Luther said "under" and "in" if misunderstood can possibly imply Consubstantiation - another medieval invention of CATHOLIC Scholasticism which Luther rejected and so since Luther and Lutheranism rejects that other CATHOLIC invention, these 3 times Luther used those words are not best (I agree, he should have stuck with "with" or just "is") but that does NOT mean Luther ERGO is mandated to have taught Consubstantiation which he did not and which Lutheranism does not. Let's try this again: Lutheranism teaches what the church for 1500 years always taught: That what Jesus said and Paul penned is what they mean and what is true. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Bread" = bread. "Wine" = wine. That's it. That's all. Body is. Blood is. Bread is. Wine is. Is has to do with reality, presence, being. "Is" doesn't mean "phyically changed from one reality to a different reality via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And "is" typically doesn't mean "is NOT but misleadingly SEEMS like it." Body is there - so is Blood - so is Wine - so is Bread. They are all "IS." IS.


It's called "Real Presence" and it was universal view of Christians until some medieval Roman Catholics invented "Transubstantiation" (and that single denomination dogmatized that view in 1551) and until Zwingli came along about the same time with his "Not REALLY present" view.


Now, of course, people have QUESTIONS. Just as we do with the two inseparable full natures of Christ or with the Trinity. And that's okay. But just because we have questions doesn't make what Jesus said and Paul penned wrong, and doesn't mean self must appoint self to correct Jesus and Paul and get them out of error. For 15 centuries, Christians referred to this as "The MYSTERY of Real Presence" and that's because it's mystery. We don't know how this "fits" physics (any more than we know how the Two Natures of Christ or the Three Persons of the Trinity "fit" physics). But that's not God's problem and doesn't mean God is wrong - only that God didn't answer our questions. Scripture command us to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." It doesn't command us to be "Correcters of God getting Him out of trouble and making Him make sense." We are called to faith and obedience, not pride and correcting Jesus from His error and misleading teachings.



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

As has been repeatedly shown, the three times in Luther's life when he used the words "under" or "in" in reference to the bread and wine are not - in any sense - an attempt to "explain" anything or deny anything in the text. I agree his use - three times in his life - of these two words rather than the zillions of times he simply said "is" was not best, but that does not mean Luther mean to deny or explain away the miracle, the Mystery of Real Presence.

But that's Luther. The question here that you were anxious for us to keep focused on is, "What do Lutherans believe?" It is not "What did Martin Luther believe (or say)?"

If the Lutheran churches and the Concordia Publishing House are telling the world that it is as I reported, doesn't that essentially tell us what Lutherans, if not every last one of them, believe?

 

[Josiah]

But that's Luther. The question here that you were anxious for us to keep focused on is, "What do Lutherans believe?" If the Lutheran churches and the Concordia Publishing House are telling the world that it is as I reported, doesn't that essentially tell us what Lutherans, if not every last one of them, believe?

MoreCoffee, a Catholic, started this thread. It might be that he was/is "anxious" to learn about Lutheranism but no Lutheran started this thread.


Yes, Lutheranism teaches Real Presence. And IF Lutherans were paying attention in Confirmation Class (I can't document all always did) and IF they agree with what they were taught (and I can't document that all of them always and eternally do), then they believe in Real Presence. They stated they did at their Confirmation. The same is true for Anglicans and Anglican Confirmation and education, I'm sure. Luther doesn't determine Lutheran teaching, but yes Lutherans were taught that the 3 times he said "in" or "under" were not an attempt to deny anything in the text or to explain away the miracle, the "MYSTERY of Real Presence" and not an attempt to teach Consubstantiation which Lutherans clearly reject, it was an attempt to distance from the common (but not yet doctrine) teaching all his readers had been taught: Transubstantiation. Lutherans were all taught this. Whether they learned it and whether they believe it - I have no way to document. Nor do you.


Lutheranism teaches Real Presence. It is what the church for 1500 years always taught: That what Jesus said and Paul penned is what they meant and what is true. What Jesus said and Paul penned is what they meant and what is true. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Bread" = bread. "Wine" = wine. That's it. That's all. Body is. Blood is. Bread is. Wine is. Is has to do with reality, presence, being. "Is" doesn't mean "phyically changed from one reality to a different reality via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And "is" typically doesn't mean "is NOT but misleadingly SEEMS like it." Body is there - so is Blood - so is Wine - so is Bread. They are all "IS." IS. We probably can say "the bread is there with the wine with the body with the blood" since the IS applies to all of them.


It's called "Real Presence" and it was universal view of Christians until some medieval Roman Catholics invented "Transubstantiation" (and that single denomination dogmatized that view in 1551, a few years after the death of Luther and several years after most of the Lutheran Confessions were written) and until Zwingli came along about the same time with his "Not REALLY present" view.


Now, of course, people have QUESTIONS. Just as we do with the two inseparable full natures of Christ or with the Trinity. And Lutherans hold that's okay. But just because we have questions doesn't make what Jesus said and Paul penned wrong, and doesn't mean self must appoint self to correct Jesus and Paul and get them out of error. For 15 centuries, Christians referred to this as "The MYSTERY of Real Presence" and that's because it's mystery. We don't know how this "fits" physics (any more than we know how the Two Natures of Christ or the Three Persons of the Trinity "fit" physics). But that's not God's problem and doesn't mean God is wrong - only that God didn't answer our questions. Scripture command us to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." It doesn't command us to be "Correcters of God getting Him out of trouble and making Him make sense." We are called to faith and obedience, not pride and correcting Jesus from His error and misleading teachings.


Again, Lutheranism teaches Real Presence. Nothing less, nothing more. What the church for 1500 years always taught: That what Jesus said and Paul penned is what they mean and what is true. "Is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Bread" = bread. "Wine" = wine. That's it. That's all. Body is. Blood is. Bread is. Wine is. Is has to do with reality, presence, being. "Is" doesn't mean "phyically changed from one reality to a different reality via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And "is" typically doesn't mean "is NOT but misleadingly SEEMS like it." Body is there - so is Blood - so is Wine - so is Bread. They are all "IS." IS.


I hope that helps.



Any questions about other Lutheran teachings?



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

But that's Luther. The question here that you were anxious for us to keep focused on is, "What do Lutherans believe?" It is not "What did Martin Luther believe (or say)?"

If the Lutheran churches and the Concordia Publishing House are telling the world that it is as I reported, doesn't that essentially tell us what Lutherans, if not every last one of them, believe?

The Lutheran Confessions use terms such as "under the bread" and "in the bread" and "with the bread" although under and in is more commonly used. They weren't introducing a new doctrine but trying to convey the mysterious sacramental union of Communion and as has been pointed out also deny what the Romans taught at one end and Zwingli at the other. As I pointed out earlier it also distinctly denies cannibalism.

Here is a nice PDF that goes into what is being said in the confessions as well as why those things were stated:
The Real Presence in the Book of Concord

 

[Albion]

The Lutheran Confessions use terms such as "under the bread" and "in the bread" and "with the bread" although under and in is more commonly used.

...meaning that we can turn to the Lutheran Confessions in addition to the Lutheran church bodies and agencies, etc. I mentioned before, and we get the same answer to the question, "What do Lutherans believe?" It is as you've said here.

 

[user1234]

Yup. It's what this thread is about. MoreCoffee created a thread because wanted to know what Lutheranism teaches. And that's what this thread is about.

OF COURSE, some disagree with what Lutheranism teaches about some things (is that surprising, is that shocking?). If you want to debate Real Presence, go here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical



Do you have any other questions about Lutheran teachings?



.

Not really, because it's just opinions from SOME Lutherans, obviously not all, and the more I hear of Lutheran opinions, the more they seem determined to divide the body of Christ, rather than unite, and I think Id rather go to the bible, where I KNOW its true and I have much to learn, rather than a denominational list of 'must-believes', some of which may be good and some of which may be opinions that arent so good, and rather than debate them and divide over it (because ppl are just locked into their opinions) Id rather focus on Gods Word and what unites us.
From what Ive see, the Lutherans believe that its the eating and drinking of the bread and wine that is important and brings forgiveness, but I believe its the SHEDDING of Christs blood on the cross that paid for our sins and our faith in that (in Jesus) that we're forgiven.
I dont think the Lutheran church (or a section of it) is going to change its opinion any time soon, and I dont expect to be changing what I believe the bible says, so Id rather say God bless you and praise the Lord.