What do Lutherans believe?

[Lamb]

One truth here is that Lutherans define everything, right down to the last jot and title, just as Catholics do. And they state that it is necessary for Christians to be correct on all of them. This may be good or it may not be, but it is the way it is. Maybe it owes to something inherent in being German or maybe it owes to something else, but it is there.

Actually that is incorrect. Where there is a mystery Lutherans leave it as saying It Is A Mystery.

 

[Albion]

Actually that is incorrect. Where there is a mystery Lutherans leave it as saying It Is A Mystery.

They'll address it and define it as a mystery, though, and require members to agree that it is.

 

[Lamb]

They'll address it and define it as a mystery, though, and require members to agree that it is.

Lutherans address the Lord's Supper as saying is means is. Saying in, with and under doesn't change "is". The mystery remains.

 

[Albion]

Lutherans address the Lord's Supper as saying is means is. Saying in, with and under doesn't change "is". The mystery remains.

Not really. At any rate, "mystery" doesn't cancel out the rest of what Lutherans (even you on this thread) feel the need to specify.

By the way, this isn't meant as a criticism of Lutheranism but, rather, just part of answering the question that was asked, i.e., what do Lutherans do?


'

 

[NewCreation435]

The issue of HUMAN philosophy, the issue of CURRENT HUMAN understanding of physics - is irrelevant and evaded. "IS" means is. "BODY" means body. "BLOOD" means blood. And yes "WINE" means wine and "BREAD" means bread.

It MAY be that to you the TWO full natures of Christ is "illogical" - that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, always and inseparably. It may be the Trinity is "illogical." But that doesn't make what the Bible says wrong. It simply means God is not bound to your or mine sense of "logic" or physics, that God is bigger than man. Christianity is not a man-made, it's God revealed.

For 1500 years, no Christian had any problem just accepting what the Eucharistic texts say. It doesn't seem too hard to me to accept all Christians for 15 centuries being totally okay with God as BOTH God and man (both/and), with God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit... okay with "is" = is, "body" = body, "blood" = blood, wine = wine, bread = bread. Not until a man named Zwingli came along in the 16th Century did any Christian see God's Word as "illogical" or "contradictory" or "impossible."

I'm curious. If a person who did not grow up Lutheran expressed a desire to become Lutheran would he or she have to attend classes and acknowledge or endorse that they believe this? If they did not would it exclude the person from taking part in communion?

 

[Lamb]

I'm curious. If a person who did not grow up Lutheran expressed a desire to become Lutheran would he or she have to attend classes and acknowledge or endorse that they believe this? If they did not would it exclude the person from taking part in communion?

Communion isn't just between us and God. It's also between us and those at the table communing with us. If you disagree with those around you at the church, why would you want to go up for communion? It would give a false pretense that you are sharing a mutual agreement on something of which you do not.

All the Lutheran churches I know of have an adult inquirers class that gives instruction (using the Bible). Yes, Holy Communion is gone over since it is a serious offense if a Pastor were to commune someone who doesn't believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Tigger]

Here is a link from the Book of Concord. I've posted the section you were inferring to concerning members required belief in the real presence.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...hism.php/RK=2/RS=_7zEuculaGt.P9mSNYIzrVbzDLU-


VI. The Sacrament of the Altar

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I'm curious. If a person who did not grow up Lutheran expressed a desire to become Lutheran would he or she have to attend classes and acknowledge or endorse that they believe this? If they did not would it exclude the person from taking part in communion?

Where I've been attending, an acknowledgement is required before communing. I've not attended any classes per se, but have had a conversation with the Pastor where we discussed this at length, and I accepted as true what Lutherans believe about communion. Prior to that conversation, I did not commune with them, as I did not fully understand the Lutheran view. It would be the same as if I were now to attend an evangelical service where the understanding might be that the wine and bread are merely symbolic. I would not commune with them as I believe different. Also, if I were to attend a Catholic Mass, their understanding is also different, so I would not attempt to commune (and would probably be prevented anyway)

 

[MennoSota]

I still am looking for the passage in the gospels where Jesus has his crew eat his flesh and drink his blood. I can't find it in the various translations I have looked at.
When Jesus said he would judge the sheep and the goats are they literally sheep and goats?

 

[Albion]

Try these--

Mark 14.22-24
Matthew 26.26-28
John 6.53-58

 

[Andrew]

I still am looking for the passage in the gospels where Jesus has his crew eat his flesh and drink his blood. I can't find it in the various translations I have looked at.
When Jesus said he would judge the sheep and the goats are they literally sheep and goats?

Menno do you really actually believe that this old tradition will ever be done away with? Not just that but as a Pope how could you simply say "we were wrong this whole time lol"
The church would have to forfeit all the old traditions and I just don't see that happening ever. Everyone has the right to separate literal terms from symbolic (deeper understanding) I could argue if I chose to be an idiot, that the bible clearly says he will judge the sheep and goats even though the actual literal terms are written up and down and across throughout the scripture.
Protestants are called that for a reason because they constantly protest against the Catholic people who the majority really dont read the bible for themselves nor care to and if they do they just dont get caught up in whats literal and whats symbolic, the message is clear in every church on who Christ is to us.
I honestly believe that the Catholic church helps sustain the church-age or at least lit a fire that spread throughout the world in the form of divisions that make it impossible to destroy or "put out", the attacker now has many churches instead of just one to destroy and is now consumed in that fire.
The devil stands no chance but he must have thought he did when all that insane persecution and darkness fell on the church so long ago. In a sense we should take part in the global peace of our church body instead of putting to shame churches that you dont agree with. If anything we should focus on the churches we attend and not so much others (but keep an eye out) because no one church is perfect but all are as one, still I acknowledge my concerns on my church I attend and feel an obligation to listen to what the Spirit tells me so I can help maintain my local church in pursuit and might even participate in outlining a bible study that is not so biased and misleading like the ones I have been to so far.
Your neighbor is literally your neighbor and not the world, its your church in your neighborhood and the people in it and outside it, you shouldn't be so concerned with other churches more than your own first, save those who are not converted, revive them but dont try to convert Christians over to fit your own beliefs.

....just sayin



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Try these--

Mark 14.22-24
Matthew 26.26-28
John 6.53-58

Mark 14:16-26
[16]So the two disciples went into the city and found everything just as Jesus had said, and they prepared the Passover meal there.
[17]In the evening Jesus arrived with the Twelve.
[18]As they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me here will betray me.”
[19]Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one?”
[20]He replied, “It is one of you twelve who is eating from this bowl with me.
[21]For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”
[22]As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take it, for this is my body.”
[23]And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
[24]And he said to them, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many.
[25]I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”
[26]Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.

Alright.
Notice they were partaking in the Sadir meal.
Notice that they eat first and they drink first. It is after that he makes the comment about his body and blood.
From what part of his literal body and literal blood did the disciples partake? Hind quarters? Blood from the pinky toe? Where?
The context lets us know he's not being literal. We know that the Sadir meal calls Jews to remember the Passover and the lamb that was slain. Jesus is bringing a new meaning to the Sadir, which Christians will follow in a similar vein. The Jews did not drink blood from animals, Jesus can not be speaking literally. You have to force it into the passage.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's the next passage. Again see the pattern and the partaking in the Sadir meal for passover.
Matthew 26:18-30
[18]“As you go into the city,” he told them, “you will see a certain man. Tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My time has come, and I will eat the Passover meal with my disciples at your house.’”
[19]So the disciples did as Jesus told them and prepared the Passover meal there.
[20]When it was evening, Jesus sat down at the table with the Twelve.
[21]While they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.”
[22]Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one, Lord?”
[23]He replied, “One of you who has just eaten from this bowl with me will betray me.
[24]For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”
[25]Judas, the one who would betray him, also asked, “Rabbi, am I the one?”And Jesus told him, “You have said it.”
[26]As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it, for this is my body.”
[27]And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them and said, “Each of you drink from it,
[28]for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.
[29]Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”
[30]Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.

It is interesting that Jesus willfully had Judas partake, knowing full well that Judas was damned. Do you still wish to claim it was literally Jesus flesh and blood?

 

[MennoSota]

Notice verse 54. Since Judas partook of the Passover meal, does that mean that Judas gained eternal life by eating the literal flesh and drinking the literal blood of Jesus?
Is Judas standing at the right hand of God because he ate the Sadir meal with Jesus?
Or...perhaps...Jesus is not being literal when he speaks these words about his flesh and blood. Perhaps...the Sadir meal is a remembrance of Jesus being the lamb of God who was slain for the chosen people of God. Perhaps?
John 6:43-59
[43]But Jesus replied, “Stop complaining about what I said.
[44]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.
[45]As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
[46](Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.)
[47]“I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life.
[48]Yes, I am the bread of life!
[49]Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died.
[50]Anyone who eats the bread from heaven, however, will never die.
[51]I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.”
[52]Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked.
[53]So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you.
[54]But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day.
[55]For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
[56]Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
[57]I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me.
[58]I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.”
[59]He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

 

[MennoSota]

Menno do you really actually believe that this old tradition will ever be done away with? Not just that but as a Pope how could you simply say "we were wrong this whole time lol"
The church would have to forfeit all the old traditions and I just don't see that happening ever. Everyone has the right to separate literal terms from symbolic (deeper understanding) I could argue if I chose to be an idiot, that the bible clearly says he will judge the sheep and goats even though the actual literal terms are written up and down and across throughout the scripture.
Protestants are called that for a reason because they constantly protest against the Catholic people who the majority really dont read the bible for themselves nor care to and if they do they just dont get caught up in whats literal and whats symbolic, the message is clear in every church on who Christ is to us.
I honestly believe that the Catholic church helps sustain the church-age or at least lit a fire that spread throughout the world in the form of divisions that make it impossible to destroy or "put out", the attacker now has many churches instead of just one to destroy and is now consumed in that fire.
The devil stands no chance but he must have thought he did when all that insane persecution and darkness fell on the church so long ago. In a sense we should take part in the global peace of our church body instead of putting to shame churches that you dont agree with. If anything we should focus on the churches we attend and not so much others (but keep an eye out) because no one church is perfect but all are as one, still I acknowledge my concerns on my church I attend and feel an obligation to listen to what the Spirit tells me so I can help maintain my local church in pursuit and might even participate in outlining a bible study that is not so biased and misleading like the ones I have been to so far.
Your neighbor is literally your neighbor and not the world, its your church in your neighborhood and the people in it and outside it, you shouldn't be so concerned with other churches more than your own first, save those who are not converted, revive them but dont try to convert Christians over to fit your own beliefs.

....just sayin



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Hoff, I just share what God's word is saying. I don't worry about changing anyone's mind. God is in charge of that.

 

[Andrew]

Hoff, I just share what God's word is saying. I don't worry about changing anyone's mind. God is in charge of that.

Then why be concerned with traditions that can never be changed? The church cannot survive on traditions alone that's why we have scholars who study the word and teach such as yourself and so it is not tradition alone, but tradition is a part of it. They hold that particular tradition you were referring to in remembrance of him just as Christ had commanded (when the Lord says "do" its a commandment). Whatever other beliefs they use to explain it is up to them, if they want to take it literally they can for the sake of remembrance, it's not lying and if I were a Catholic I have to believe that its actually the literal blood and flesh of Christ but I am not Catholic so I don't have to believe it... Its the beauty of being part of the Body, you were destined to stand firm and defend your beliefs I just don't see why you have to address others when It does not benefit them but only draws them to their sword in defense. Think of Peter when he drew his sword and cut off the soldiers ear, Jesus told him to put it away lest he die by the sword, he healed the mans ear and it was witnessed by others as a testimony... point being, we all get defensive but its better not to attack as it only causes damage and makes no difference in the end.
Now you can say "that is NOT what that means!!" and I will say "well of course it is, these things were literal but also had a parallel message symbolically, the word is perfect in that way, did Jesus really believe that Peter would die by a literal sword? Yes but could it be symbolic as well? Yes. So its not always necessary to attack others for believing in the literal sense as its often implied to a symbolic sense as well. It may unnerve you that some traditionalist are unaware of a symbolic "deeper meaning" and focus on mainly on traditional by literal explanations, and it may unnerve you that I used the defense of Peter as an attempt to paraphrase it symbolically and still keep the literal obviously.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[user1234]

It's not a question of diff denominations having diff meanings and it's all ok, like whatever you think is good or feels right to you is fine...
It's a question of truth. It's a question of honesty and integrity and The Truth, and if some are teaching that one's eternal destiny hangs in the balance, it becomes of utmost importance to get it right, right?

 

[Andrew]

It's not a question of diff denominations having diff meanings and it's all ok, like whatever you think is good or feels right to you is fine...
It's a question of truth. It's a question of honesty and integrity and The Truth, and if some are teaching that one's eternal destiny hangs in the balance, it becomes of utmost importance to get it right, right?

We all pretty much get the jist of what the members here believe along with their church beliefs and by there independent beliefs that may or may not conflict with their church. Thats their personal matter and are open to bounce ideas off to others and discuss them. So they all have their beliefs from their churches everyone, now the beliefs conflict with others beliefs and thats when debates take place and arguments form, shaming and bashing others beliefs and mocking them. Trying to change the others beliefs away or belittle them which is very hurtful and does no good in the end because we arent here to convert Christians who are already saved. Your neighbor is your literal neighbor and your church is in that neighborhood, they are whats important first, not the whole world but your people you are to love and to preach the good news and take them into the church (if they dont already go to one) and focus on them, give respect and love them as Christ loved us. There are no truths in this world but the One Truth, you cant see it and you cant point it out ina book you can only KNOW it, you KNOW the Truth and Jesus is the only Truth, no one can take that from you, his way is what saves and not by going to a church and coming out forgiven and saved, he is the way and those who believe in him will not hang in the balance but will be reborn and raised by grace. Forgive your enemies so the Father may forgive yours and love them as Christ loved you. If people give you a hard time on this forum turn the other cheek and dust your feet, if they offended you forgive them.... Im super tired lol i hope this makes some sense when i read it in the morning... Night night

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

Mark 14:16-26
[16]So the two disciples went into the city and found everything just as Jesus had said, and they prepared the Passover meal there.
[17]In the evening Jesus arrived with the Twelve.
[18]As they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me here will betray me.”
[19]Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one?”
[20]He replied, “It is one of you twelve who is eating from this bowl with me.
[21]For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!”
[22]As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take it, for this is my body.”
[23]And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
[24]And he said to them, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many.
[25]I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”
[26]Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.

Alright.
Notice they were partaking in the Sadir meal.
Notice that they eat first and they drink first. It is after that he makes the comment about his body and blood.
From what part of his literal body and literal blood did the disciples partake? Hind quarters? Blood from the pinky toe? Where?
The context lets us know he's not being literal. We know that the Sadir meal calls Jews to remember the Passover and the lamb that was slain. Jesus is bringing a new meaning to the Sadir, which Christians will follow in a similar vein. The Jews did not drink blood from animals, Jesus can not be speaking literally. You have to force it into the passage.

Then Jesus drank His own blood and ate His own body, if it's literal.

 

[Lamb]

Try these--

Mark 14.22-24
Matthew 26.26-28
John 6.53-58

Great verses.

It's so difficult for people to believe in the Real Presence but is it also difficult to believe that Jesus died for the sin of the world? How about God creating the universe in 6 days? Or hearing everyone's prayers at once?