Confusion over Lutheran teaching on Salvation ... they come by it honestly

[Lamb]

I read through some of it. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of Scripture references in many of the points of the Small and Large Catechism. The Heidelberg Chatechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith are both chock full of scripture reference that you can look up for yourself to see where they drew every point from. There may be something similar in the volumes of Lutheran work contained in the Book of Concord or the other documents linked on that web page, but I didn't stumble across it in my brief scan.

I would return the favor and offer a link to the Westminster Confession of Faith, except I like you and that would not be an act of kindness. If God ever sends a second flood, I would probably stand on a copy of the WCF, since it is so dry that it would probably keep me safe.

I have read it already, thank you.

 

[Lamb]

But, friend atpollard, nobody reads scripture passages for a position with which they disagree, right?

Why do you have to bring that attitude? I really don't understand why you feel it is necessary to take snipes like that? It doesn't help for communication.

 

[Lamb]

I was concerned about how you did not see scriptural references in the link I gave to you so I went through each section of the Lutheran Confessions and I do see a lot of scriptures in there. Some of them are abbreviated so maybe that's why you didn't notice them? They aren't all linked as we have here where you can hover and read the verse. That could be another reason the scripture didn't stand out?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why do you have to bring that attitude? I really don't understand why you feel it is necessary to take snipes like that? It doesn't help for communication.

Snipes? It is not addressed to anybody specific. It is a generalisation that represents many years of experience with people from all sorts of faith groups. There are, of course, exceptions to the generalisation. Some interlocutors do read what others say and the passages that they reference (or quote) and respond according to what they see in the passages. Many do not do these things. I can think of several who used to come here who did exactly what the generalisation says. You ought not to take to heart a general statement as if it were addressing you or somebody you know.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was concerned about how you did not see scriptural references in the link I gave to you so I went through each section of the Lutheran Confessions and I do see a lot of scriptures in there. Some of them are abbreviated so maybe that's why you didn't notice them? They aren't all linked as we have here where you can hover and read the verse. That could be another reason the scripture didn't stand out?

You meant this for somebody ... but I am not sure who.

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans believe that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving.

The HOW is left to mystery.... It involves God's mercy (not getting what we deserve) and grace (God's unconditional, unearned, unmerited and usually unrequested love, favor, blessings, gifts).... it involves the incarnation, perfect life, sacrificial death and especially glorious resurrection of Jesus..... it involves the divine gift of faith given to us by God.... but how all of this "works" is left to God. Lutherans lift high the Cross (not our mirror), Lutherans lift high the Christ (not ourselves), Lutherans give all the credit and all the glory and all the thanks to Christ ALONE. Just as we physically live and breath because of the miracle of life God gave us to by grace, so we spiritually live and breath because of the miracle of spiritual life God gave to us. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Soli Deo Gloria!!!




.

I don't remember ever seeing another Statement of Faith by any denomination that explicitly attacked the beliefs of other Christians in their statement of what they believe.

Perhaps you've read few statements of faith...... Most of the Confessions of most Christian communities are written in the "support/condemn" format. Most were caused because of (what that communities concludes) FALSE teachings or practices, not infrequently actually addressed to the group that it feels is teachings or doing things wrongly. Thus the: "We hold...... we condemn" format so common in the confessions of Christian theology and churches. And yes, for centuries, lots of strong condemnations have flown around between Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminianists, Catholics and beyond; you are surely aware that they differ in their beliefs and practices. And since these confessions were written LONG before relativism became the state religion, LONG before Mr. Roger's began his TV show, LONG before "Kumbyah" became the defining Christian hymn, LONG before "Political Correctness" replaced truth, well - they may not have been worded exactly the way some might now prefer.

The Lutherans condemn both 'synergism' and 'Calvinism'.

Yes, Lutherans disagree with BOTH.

Which is why Lutherans don't get involved in the mean, vicious, WAR that has been going on for over 400 years and waged at many Christian discussion forums between Calvinists and Arminians. When I was on Staff at CF in the Theology section, that subform probably accounted for half of the staff actions - Calvinists and Arminianists saying some very, very UN-Politically Correct things to each other. Rarely (if ever) did a Lutheran post there. We reject both.

Now, when it's framed as Monergism vs. Synergism, Lutherans are passionately monergists, as you well know. And if the subject sticks to that, Lutherans and Calvinists are "on the same page." But eventually, Calvinists get off into their limited atonement, double predestination, OSAS, etc. - and yup, the subject changes and we find disagreement. You know that. Calvinists disagree with Lutherans (which might be why they are called "Calvinists" rather than Lutherans), and Lutherans disagree with Calvinists (which might be why they are called "Lutherans" rather than "Calvinists"). I don't think any are shocked by this.



Now, if your point is that Lutherans might have had their feelings hurt when Luther was excommunicated..... or that Catholics have chosen to feel offended by Lutherans rejecting that their denominations' bishop in Rome is infallible - then I agree. People can choose to feel anything they want. And I agree, if what matters is how people choose to feel rather than what is true (and that IS the very modern milieu, I agree with you there) then this could be condemned. Thus the reason for the uber-relativism, the Mr. Rogers-ism, the Kumbyahism of our day: How people choose to FEEL is what matters, not truth. Thing is, my friend, I don't agree with that. I DO hope that doesn't hurt you, but that IS my position. NO offense is intended or meant or implied.

I am making a far greater effort to understand your terms and try to accept your passion as other than a personal attack.

Good. You quoted me..... then entirely ignored very single word of it. Personally, I'm struggling to see how what you quoted from me is "personal malice" toward you and a "personal attack" on you....



Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Quick Comments over the "Brief Statement of 1932" of the individual LCMS.....


HISTORY This is a resolution that was voted on by a convention of the LCMS in 1932. It was in response to charges (inside LCMS) that some theologians and pastors in the LCMS had wondered into some forms of Calvinism. The convention wanted to 1) Make clear the LCMS is Lutheran rather than Calvinist where differences between them exist, and 2) wanted to rebuke any teachers or pastors in the LCMS who might (perhaps innocently) be disagreeing with Lutheranism and at least seeming to be Calvinistic. It was only a convention resolution only to address that. Although admittedly, especially the seminary in Springfield use it as a kind of "litmus test" well into the early 60's. Today, virtually no laity have ever heard of it and it seems to serve no purpose since whatever Calvinistic thoughts MAY (perhaps) have existed in 1932, no longer do. And yes, while they were at it, the Brief Statement affirms several other (wrong) things that some at that convention thought might be sneaking into the LCMS.


PURPOSE: Again, this was never written as a dialogue between the LCMS and the Reformed or Catholic faith communities. It was an internal issue, written exclusively to LCMS teachers and pastors. It may be the tone doesn't quite express that of Mr. Rogers, it may seem to our 2017 hears to be not as syrupy as we'd like, some may even disagree with it, but again, the purpose was to declare the LCMS is solidly LUTHERAN and not this other thing. Now, one may claim, "But that other thing is not correctly identified to Calvinism!" Okay.... whatever you want to label it, whatever term you would have preferred this convention in 1932 of this singular Lutheran denomination had used, it's being rejected. Again, this was never intended to invite any discussion with anyone about anything. It was written by the LCMS for the LCMS to address what the majority of the delegates at that 1932 convention felt was a problem in the LCMS.


CONFESSIONS: The Lutheran Confessions were written almost entirely to the RC Denomination and address the Catholicism of the 16th Century. They declare the Lutheran position (vis-a-vis Catholicism) in terms of where Lutherans agree and disagree with the RC Denomination and its dogmas back then. Now, every one of the 300+ Lutheran denominations today rather constantly issue statements (some official, some not) about this and that. While these MAY have some significant impact for that Lutheran denomination in that day, NONE of these have ever been made Lutheran Confessions, nor have there been ANY attempts by ANY Lutheran group to do so. In most cases, these are written to address a CURRENT ISSUE in that Lutheran denomination and in most cases, are rather quickly forgotten.


MY Interaction: Years ago, when I was investigating Lutheranism, a poster at CF told me about this resolution from the 1932 LCMS Convention. I found it online and read it. None of it bothered me much until I got to the stuff about the Pope. While I had LEFT the RC Denomination by then, I have no ill feelings about that denomination and I was personally quite offended by the statements made about the Pope. That troubled me. It was what kept me for a couple of years from joining the Lutheran Church (and especially the LCMS). But I time, I came to realize the HISTORICAL context of this..... I came to realize that this simply is not a view currently held position among Lutherans. Indeed, the parish pastor I now have has a very high opinion of the pope and generally of the men who have held that office since Luther's time. Indeed, I gained my views REJECTING the pope as the antichrist from my Lutheran pastor.

It seems like very infertile ground for a conversation.

... which makes me wonder why you created a thread for such a conversation? But it's allowed.



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

You meant this for somebody ... but I am not sure who.

Sorry. It was for atpollard after his review of the link I provided for the Lutheran Confessions.

 

[atpollard]

Good. You quoted me..... then entirely ignored every single word of it. Personally, I'm struggling to see how what you quoted from me is "personal malice" toward you and a "personal attack" on you....

Soli Deo Gloria

- Josiah

What I quoted upthread from you wasn't (personal malice or attack), most OTHER posts between us are at least a bit strained. Let's take just this little bit above. I have no way to know your intent, but you state " then entirely ignored every single word of it". This is simply not true. So I must now attempt to guess whether this means that you expected more of a response than I provided, or you view my post through glasses that are looking to find fault. I have absolutely no way to know your heart. I assume that you expected more (part of that effort to not assume the worst). Since I feel at least a tint of accusation, I cannot invest any time in addressing THIS more recent post of yours, I must go back and more fully address the previous post you clearly feel was "entirely ignored".


YOUR POST:

Lutherans believe that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving.

The HOW is left to mystery.... It involves God's mercy (not getting what we deserve) and grace (God's unconditional, unearned, unmerited and usually unrequested love, favor, blessings, gifts).... it involves the incarnation, perfect life, sacrificial death and especially glorious resurrection of Jesus..... it involves the divine gift of faith given to us by God.... but how all of this "works" is left to God. Lutherans lift high the Cross (not our mirror), Lutherans lift high the Christ (not ourselves), Lutherans give all the credit and all the glory and all the thanks to Christ ALONE. Just as we physically live and breath because of the miracle of life God gave us to by grace, so we spiritually live and breath because of the miracle of spiritual life God gave to us. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Soli Deo Gloria!!!

In His MERCY,

Josiah

MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE:

I know.
The Statement from the LCMS explained it.

What I find most unique in the Lutheran Statement of Faith is that I don't remember ever seeing another Statement of Faith by any denomination that explicitly attacked the beliefs of other Christians in their statement of what they believe. The Lutherans, in contrast, make a special point to strongly condemn both 'synergism' (which despite its definition in the Lutheran Statement, I take to include the various forms of Wesleyan Arminianism) and 'Calvinism'. I was shocked to see the official Statement of Faith go as far as using terms like 'Calvinistic perversion' and 'utterly vicious'.

Surely you can see how a Calvinist could hear his interpretation of scripture described as a 'perversion' or 'utterly vicious' and begin to wonder if Lutherans even regarded someone like a Reformed Baptist as a Christian Brother. At the very least, it IS a deeply personal attack on my beliefs. I know of no Baptist Statement which refers to that 'Lutheran perversion' of scripture or the 'utterly vicious' Lutheran practice of sprinkling infants and filling them with a false hope that they are saved apart from the Salvation offered by Christ as recorded in Scripture.

I have been assured that I am reading personal malice in your posts where none is intended. Therefore, I am making a far greater effort to understand your terms and try to accept your passion as other than a personal attack. You need to be aware that your doctrinal statements are built on an element of personal attack and people will take offense to having their beliefs described as 'viscous' or a 'perversion'.

My direct response to your statement of Lutheran beliefs was:

"I know.
The Statement from the LCMS explained it."

I saw no contradiction between what you posted and what the LCMS website provided. You seemed to expand on none of the points they raised. The response seemed adequate.

So I moved the conversation forward by pointing out what shocked me most about the statement of faith. Nothing that Lutherans believed seemed 'crazy' and most of it I either knew from conversations with Presbyterians how Lutherans arrived at that position or I recognized which scriptures Lutherans chose to emphasize to reach that position. I was not even shocked with statements that Lutherans reject this or that belief or interpretation, I had seen those before. What shocked me was the choice of terms like "perversion" and "utterly vicious" to describe beliefs that were not essential to salvation. I was unaware that the Lutheran Statement of Faith codified that level of hatred towards other Christian beliefs and maintained it into the modern age. Of course you disagree with some of the beliefs of other denominations. If you agreed 100% you would be the same denomination.

Setting that aside, since Lammchen explained that it is largely an artifact of cutting and pasting from 16th century sources, let's look at your statements in more detail:

Lutherans believe that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving.

I agree. So do all Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Church of God, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, etc.. The Jehovah's Witnesses would disagree and I am not sure about Mormons.

The HOW is left to mystery....

Both Calvinists and Arminians would agree to some extent, however both would claim (as I suspect Lutherans claim) that God has provided some information in his Word (the Bible) and we may trust and believe what God has told us to be true, even if it will not provide a complete understanding of all of the details.

It involves God's mercy (not getting what we deserve) and grace (God's unconditional, unearned, unmerited and usually unrequested love, favor, blessings, gifts)....

Calvinists and Wesleyan Arminians agree.

it involves the incarnation, perfect life, sacrificial death and especially glorious resurrection of Jesus.....

Your Calvinist, Wesletan Arminian and Catholic brothers in Christ agree with you.

it involves the divine gift of faith given to us by God....

Calvinists and Wesleyan Arminians agree.

but how all of this "works" is left to God.

Calvinists and Wesleyan Arminians agree ... yet God has not left us completely ignorant but has told us of his plan in his Holy Word.

Lutherans lift high the Cross (not our mirror),

As do Calvinists and Wesleyan Arminians.

Lutherans lift high the Christ (not ourselves),

As do Calvinists and Wesleyan Arminians.

Lutherans give all the credit and all the glory and all the thanks to Christ ALONE.

As do As do Calvinists and (depending on who you ask) Wesleyan Arminians ... but the Wesleyans only take credit for accepting God's gift, so they would claim that God still gets all the glory. Many monergists would disagree with them on that opinion of Wesleyanism.

Just as we physically live and breath because of the miracle of life God gave us to by grace, so we spiritually live and breath because of the miracle of spiritual life God gave to us.

Calvinists and Wesleyan Arminians agree.

Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide! Soli Deo Gloria!!!

I agree, and add Sola Scriptura ... God's Word alone is infallible.

In His MERCY,

Right there with you.

Josiah

Arthur

 

[atpollard]

... which makes me wonder why you created a thread for such a conversation? But it's allowed.
- Josiah

I am not ignoring the rest of your post, I just have time for only a quick response and this was easy to respond to:

The issue I (and from a spectator's view of conversations, others as well) was having was it was impossible to connect the dots on what Lutherans believe from the individual posts. I sought out and found a more comprehensive and systematic statement of Lutheran beliefs which I posted here to share with any non-Lutherans who might have been having as much trouble following your (Lutherans collectively, not necessisarily your's personally) comments and theology on other threads.

I had assumed that if any Lutheran disagreed with anything in the statements of the LCMS that they would speak up and correct what they thought was wrong with what I posted.

That is why I created it.

 

[atpollard]

I have read it already, thank you.

My condolences.

I like the Heidelberg Catechism better ... 90% of the bang for 10% of the dull.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

nm