Are there other lutheran groups?

[TheDag]

When you move the cursor over the forum name on the main page it lists a number of different Lutheran groups such as elca, lcms, wels and other similar churches. Can anyone mention other Lutheran church groups that would not fit under this description keeping in mind the bit I've underlined.

[filosofer]

Lutheran Resources (http://www.lutheranresource.com/)

[guitarplayer_101]

I know there is a church of the lutheran bretheren in my town, I really don't know anything about them though.
B.J.:wave:

[Tetzel]

Lithuanian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Diaspora

[TheDag]

The reason I asked is that after going to a lutheran church for 20 or so years and looking at the beliefs of the lutheran church of australia alot of the statements made on this forum about what the lutherans believe don't match up. I guess I'm just a bit surprised at how different some of the views of different lutheran churches can be

[Music4Hym777]

The reason I asked is that after going to a lutheran church for 20 or so years and looking at the beliefs of the lutheran church of australia alot of the statements made on this forum about what the lutherans believe don't match up. I guess I'm just a bit surprised at how different some of the views of different lutheran churches can be

Lutheran churches can be very different! We all abide by the Creeds and the Book of Concord though, the rest is trivial, some of us belong to very conservative Lutheran churches and some of us belong to very liberal Lutheran churches.

[ByzantineDixie]

Lutheran churches can be very different! We all abide by the Creeds and the Book of Concord though, the rest is trivial, some of us belong to very conservative Lutheran churches and some of us belong to very liberal Lutheran churches.

Well, I am coming out of my self imposed exile only briefly to comment on this. Monica (and anyone else to whom this may apply), please do not take what I am about to say personally. I have spent the last several weeks pondering these very things and I am just going to put the pieces down as I see them.



Yes, Lutheran churches are indeed all over the board—not because they are supposed to be different, but because many (most? almost all?) churches that bear the title Lutheran no longer resemble a truly orthodox and confessional Lutheran church.



Here are just a few examples of where these quasi-Lutheran churches have opted to selectively ignore scripture, the confessions and the 2000 year old Traditions of the church.



1) Some churches no longer hold to the understanding that Scripture “is” the word of God but rather have taken a less restrictive position and assent only to Scripture “containing” the word of God. Yes, that means only parts of the bible are the inspired word of God, not all. Which parts are not? The parts that don’t work for us in this modern age. The parts that cramp our style. Obviously, this would not be the orthodox and confessional Lutheran position.

2) Female pastors. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran option.

3) Open Communion Table. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran practice.

4) The abandonment of Private Confession. Again…not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran position.



I could go on and on but doing so just makes me more depressed.



I emphatically disagree that these are trivial matters. These are grave matters and should be seen as such. These are signs that the Lutheran church is falling apart before our eyes.



Many of you may want to argue for your pet innovations from the list. Go ahead but the bottom line is Luther’s churches were guilty of NONE of the above.



The Dag…what’s going on down under. When you say the opinions on this board are different from what you know…how is that? Are y’all better Lutherans than we seem to be in North America?



Till the next time I can’t contain myself ;) ….R

[AngelusSax]

1) Some churches no longer hold to the understanding that Scripture “is” the word of God but rather have taken a less restrictive position and assent only to Scripture “containing” the word of God. Yes, that means only parts of the bible are the inspired word of God, not all. Which parts are not? The parts that don’t work for us in this modern age. The parts that cramp our style. Obviously, this would not be the orthodox and confessional Lutheran position.

Don't forget the part that says we can't wear a fabric made of two fibers woven together, thus eliminating all our poly/wool blends. Even the most fundamental churches no longer hold to that bit of inerrancy... well maybe a VERY small number do, but I've yet to see even one personally.

2) Female pastors. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran option.

Then I guess the Priesthood of ALL believers isn't really confessional then either. I mean, if we wanna take that literally... it says "all believers", not "all male believers."

4) The abandonment of Private Confession. Again…not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran position.

Now this one I can agree with. Sadly, many people view this as "too Catholic", espeically around where I live. Fortunately, we have one of those "wacky liberal" pastors in now (who affirms a woman's right to be a part of a literal priesthood of literally all believers) who's going to begin offering some private confessional time.

I didn't address the third point because... well I just don't think I need to.

[Music4Hym777]

Dont worry, I'm not offended at all. I know that for many of us those are differences that make us as far apart as the East is from the West. I was just touching on the criterion of Lutheranism for here(CF)....does that make sense?

[Jim47]

Well, I am coming out of my self imposed exile only briefly to comment on this. Monica (and anyone else to whom this may apply), please do not take what I am about to say personally. I have spent the last several weeks pondering these very things and I am just going to put the pieces down as I see them.



Yes, Lutheran churches are indeed all over the board—not because they are supposed to be different, but because many (most? almost all?) churches that bear the title Lutheran no longer resemble a truly orthodox and confessional Lutheran church.



Here are just a few examples of where these quasi-Lutheran churches have opted to selectively ignore scripture, the confessions and the 2000 year old Traditions of the church.



1) Some churches no longer hold to the understanding that Scripture “is” the word of God but rather have taken a less restrictive position and assent only to Scripture “containing” the word of God. Yes, that means only parts of the bible are the inspired word of God, not all. Which parts are not? The parts that don’t work for us in this modern age. The parts that cramp our style. Obviously, this would not be the orthodox and confessional Lutheran position.

2) Female pastors. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran option.

3) Open Communion Table. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran practice.

4) The abandonment of Private Confession. Again…not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran position.



I could go on and on but doing so just makes me more depressed.



I emphatically disagree that these are trivial matters. These are grave matters and should be seen as such. These are signs that the Lutheran church is falling apart before our eyes.



Many of you may want to argue for your pet innovations from the list. Go ahead but the bottom line is Luther’s churches were guilty of NONE of the above.



The Dag…what’s going on down under. When you say the opinions on this board are different from what you know…how is that? Are y’all better Lutherans than we seem to be in North America?



Till the next time I can’t contain myself ;) ….R



Very Sadly, I would have to agree with everything you have said. But not just Lutherans, Christianity as a whole.

Just as our country, The USA, is leaving the foundations our wise founding Fathers gave us, we too, as Christians have forsaken The Word of God for things with more appeal. The really bad thing is, we pride ourselves on being wise and well educated, but yet do we heed the warning laid our for us in scripture and take into account the mistakes made by the Israelites ?


I think maybe its time for another reformation?
http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[SPALATIN]

2) Female pastors. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran option.




Then I guess the Priesthood of ALL believers isn't really confessional then either. I mean, if we wanna take that literally... it says "all believers", not "all male believers."


No the Priesthood of all believer's is confessional and Orthodox, but women having authority over man in the church is not. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox have never nor will have a female pastor. They are considered Orthodox.

Church's with female pastors are heterodox.

This has nothing to do with the Priesthood of all Believers, but with the Office of Holy or Public Ministry. They are not one and the same and if anyone says they are they don't know what they are talking about.

[AngelusSax]

This has nothing to do with the Priesthood of all Believers, but with the Office of Holy or Public Ministry. They are not one and the same and if anyone says they are they don't know what they are talking about.

So they can be in the priesthood in areas except in the name. Got it.

[revjpw]

Don't forget the part that says we can't wear a fabric made of two fibers woven together, thus eliminating all our poly/wool blends. Even the most fundamental churches no longer hold to that bit of inerrancy... well maybe a VERY small number do, but I've yet to see even one personally.

You have forgotten that Christians are no longer held to the Jewish Ceremonial Laws.


Then I guess the Priesthood of ALL believers isn't really confessional then either. I mean, if we wanna take that literally... it says "all believers", not "all male believers."

The "priesthood of all believers" is distinct from the Office of the Pastoral Ministry. They are two completely different things. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. Until you do you will never "get it."



I didn't address the third point because... well I just don't think I need to.

I am shocked that you don't have an opinion on this one! :eek:
Do you mean to tell me that you have actually seen the light on the sinfulness and lovelessness of Open Communion??:eek:

[TheDag]

3) Open Communion Table. Not an orthodox and confessional Lutheran practice.
Could you explain why this is a grave matter please. The Australian Lutheran church used to have this as part of their belief but no longer do. I think they realised that the other churches are christians do so as long as they believe christ was the son of God and died for our sins then its ok. They do still give the warning about taking communion in an unworthy manner. Even those churches who stuck to the official view could not agree on what was meant by that belief. Some took the view that any member of the lutheran church could have communion while others said only members of that individual church could have communion there (that is visiting lutherans were not welcome to have communion)

Many of you may want to argue for your pet innovations from the list. Go ahead but the bottom line is Luther’s churches were guilty of NONE of the above.
We don't have any of Luther's churches in Australia only lutheran churches. In other words what was done in luther's time is of no relevance. Remember that in luther's time they used to lock up epileptics because they thought they were demon possesed. Thankfully they now see it for what it is a medical condition that can be treated.



The Dag…what’s going on down under. When you say the opinions on this board are different from what you know…how is that? Are y’all better Lutherans than we seem to be in North America?
I'm not saying anyone is a better lutheran than others just that I have noticed big differences in the view of people who have posted here and what I was taught (or maybe they didn't explain their belief very well) when I grew up in a lutheran church. I now go to salvation army church. I do still talk to my parents and friends about the lutheran church which is how I found out about the change in who can have communion in a lutheran church.

[AngelusSax]

You have forgotten that Christians are no longer held to the Jewish Ceremonial Laws.

No, I haven't. I'm just pointing out that we love to pick and choose which ones we say others have to adhere to, since we already do by the way we live naturally.

The "priesthood of all believers" is distinct from the Office of the Pastoral Ministry. They are two completely different things. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. Until you do you will never "get it."

With all due respect, I don't think they should be, and I honestly don't think that having it distinct is having the mind of Christ at all.

I am shocked that you don't have an opinion on this one! :eek:
Do you mean to tell me that you have actually seen the light on the sinfulness and lovelessness of Open Communion??:eek:

Oh I have an opinion. And my opinion is that it's disgraceful that some people think it's their job to with-hold the Grace of God from others by not allowing them to take communion. I was hoping that didn't need said, but apparently it does.

[revjpw]

With all due respect, I don't think they should be, and I honestly don't think that having it distinct is having the mind of Christ at all.

Even though Christ Himself instituted the Office of the Keys as distinct from the laity?

Oh I have an opinion. And my opinion is that it's disgraceful that some people think it's their job to with-hold the Grace of God from others by not allowing them to take communion. I was hoping that didn't need said, but apparently it does.

Oh, I don't believe that anyone should withhold the Grace of God either. What you absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that those who receive unworthily without discerning the Body and Blood are not receiving any Grace, but are in fact committing a sin at the altar, as Scripture clearly states in 1 Cor. 11. It is the job of the Pastor to care for people's spiritual well-being.
How can someone receive Grace by sinning??:scratch: :scratch:
I was hoping that didn't need said again, but apparently it does.

[SPALATIN]

17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!


23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.



For the very reasons that Paul mentions above we need to have doctrinal agreement with those we commune with at the sacrament. It is through this sacrament and the agreement of all involved that God attaches his promises.

Open Communion does not foster this and puts everyone at risk because doctirnal agreement is not there.

We do not withhold grace from those who agree with us that the Christ is present in, with and under the bread and wine. For this reason we do not commune with Sacramentarians (Calvinists, Presbyterians, Reformed) or Arminians (Baptists, Pentecostals etc.)

[mnphysicist]

Hmmm, interesting, but to infer doctrinal agreement is required at least to me, is not readily apparent. I can see where you are coming from, but it seems a bit of a stretch. In fariness though, it has been years since my study of Lutheran doctine... and it may be addressed within. Yet, if I look at scripture only, it seems a stretch.

In verses 18 and 19, the divisions from my perspective concerning God's approval, are related to those in Christ compared to those without Christ, not doctrinal issues, and certainly not procedural issues. Yet, there is very much a division, and much of it so, within a single body of believers over minutia, such as hours of worship, church building, operations etc. We are one in Christ, amongst those who believe in His name. Were it to be doctrinal, would it even be possible for the reformers to share in the Lord's supper while they were even writing it. Probably not. Were it to be procedural, even today, one could not celebrate the Lord's Supper, as the divisions are huge even within a very small Church. Within such divisions, all feel they have God's approval to the exclusion of the others.

I think the bigger issue is really two fold, Paul's emphasis on eating together, as referenced in verses 21, and verse 33. His emphasis on not overindulging in verses 21, 22 and 34. He only addresses divisions in 18 and 19, and does not re-address it later.

Where it does make a difference is verses 27-29. In an unworthy manner may well be subject to doctrinal interpretation, as well as personal. I think it is best to be exceedingly careful in this regard. Certainly Paul was referring to having a field day at the Lord's Supper is going to bring judgement, just as inviting those of Christ, and those without Christ to the table.

To me, verse 29 is the big issue.... To not recognize the body of Christ is certainly an explicit unworthy manner. I am not convinced that doctrinal issues fall into this realm, unless of course they explicity do not recognize the body of Christ... (which btw is beyond me, that so many do not, especially when Jesus is so very explicit, that this is His Body and Blood and to do so in remembrance of him verses 24-25.... not just to remember him)

Flame suit is ready
Ron

[SPALATIN]

Hmmm, interesting, but to infer doctrinal agreement is required at least to me, is not readily apparent. I can see where you are coming from, but it seems a bit of a stretch. In fariness though, it has been years since my study of Lutheran doctine... and it may be addressed within. Yet, if I look at scripture only, it seems a stretch.

In verses 18 and 19, the divisions from my perspective concerning God's approval, are related to those in Christ compared to those without Christ, not doctrinal issues, and certainly not procedural issues. Yet, there is very much a division, and much of it so, within a single body of believers over minutia, such as hours of worship, church building, operations etc. We are one in Christ, amongst those who believe in His name. Were it to be doctrinal, would it even be possible for the reformers to share in the Lord's supper while they were even writing it. Probably not. Were it to be procedural, even today, one could not celebrate the Lord's Supper, as the divisions are huge even within a very small Church. Within such divisions, all feel they have God's approval to the exclusion of the others.

I think the bigger issue is really two fold, Paul's emphasis on eating together, as referenced in verses 21, and verse 33. His emphasis on not overindulging in verses 21, 22 and 34. He only addresses divisions in 18 and 19, and does not re-address it later.

Where it does make a difference is verses 27-29. In an unworthy manner may well be subject to doctrinal interpretation, as well as personal. I think it is best to be exceedingly careful in this regard. Certainly Paul was referring to having a field day at the Lord's Supper is going to bring judgement, just as inviting those of Christ, and those without Christ to the table.

To me, verse 29 is the big issue.... To not recognize the body of Christ is certainly an explicit unworthy manner. I am not convinced that doctrinal issues fall into this realm, unless of course they explicity do not recognize the body of Christ... (which btw is beyond me, that so many do not, especially when Jesus is so very explicit, that this is His Body and Blood and to do so in remembrance of him verses 24-25.... not just to remember him)

Flame suit is ready
Ron

Ron,

This is where the rubber meets the road. Verse 29 states it all. Luther at the Marburg Colloquy was debating Zwingli the true father of what Calvinism became. Zwingli wanted to argue that we didn't take the Body and Blood of Christ but a representation and Luther's reply "Hoc est corpus meum" which translated is "This is my body" is means is and if we aren't going to the table with that same doctrinal understanding then we aren't taking it in a worthy manner.

Willy and Angelus belong to the ELCA and the ELCA has open communion agreements with churches that don't agree with this doctrine. So you could be going up to the table and communing with Reformed or Episcopalian or Presbyterian and they would be taking it their way while you take it the way the Pastor intended it. This is Unionism and the bible says this is wrong.

To use an Old Testament illustration... God told the Israelites not to marry outside their faith because it would bring pagan influences into his chosen people and hurt their faith. He was correct because time and again they did not heed his voice on this and they found themselves in trouble again.

This is the same with the body of Christ. We need to be one in faith and doctrine to be truly one.

[mnphysicist]

Still not convinced.... I shall need to review the information on that discussion. To me it again seems quite a stretch to tie doctrine into the picture. From my understanding, Luther generally stayed closed to scripture, but it has been years since I've studied his writing. Is there by chance of copy of this dialog on the web somewhere, eg between Zwingli and Luther. I'd google it, but I am lazy, it is saturday after all. :)

I tend to be very suspect of man's opinions on the matter of doctrine and faith unless scripture is tightly held to the doctrine at hand. I do not want to get into the realm of "I am of Paul, I am of Cephus, I am of Luther, I am of Zwingli", instead, we are of Christ.

Until I am convinced otherwise, my stance is that Paul is referring not to doctrine, but that those who do not believe in Christ should not partake of the Lord's supper. By doing so, they bring judgement upon themselves. The other question is whether by doing so, they bring judgement onto the body of believers present. Certainly, a Pastor would be judged, by allowing a non-believer to partake in the Lord's supper in an unworthy manor. I am not so certain the entire group of believers would be judged in such a manner. This will require more study.

As far as my doctrinal stance.... tough call. I may have a membership on paper with the ELCA, but disagree with many of their positions. To some extent, my personal beliefs are more inline with Vatican II, yet by the same token, there are some arena's where my personal beliefs are aligned with the reformed churches. Where Luther was explicit with rock solid scriptural backup, I am 100% in agreement. Where man's opinion entered the realm, or even tradition, for that matter, I study the scriptures, and make my own call. As a result, it makes service in the Church difficult. I won't compromise my beliefs in the Word of God, yet I cannot in a clean heart teach others what I do not believe to be true either.

This is where I am wimping out, and arguing from. For me to agree on doctrine, in order to have the Lord's supper would be impossible. I disagree with all doctrines, that are in opposition to scripture, or take too liberal a stance with what scripture is saying based upon an interpretation of what a man said in the past.... (which means all of them in one way or another). My argument of the Lord's supper and open communion does make me a hypocrite. It is arguing doctrine to fit my beliefs, which I have accused the ELCA of doing when it comes to changing doctrine to fit current social trends.

I am very thankful to have found this place, and am learning much.
Ron

[RedneckAnglican]

This is where I am wimping out, and arguing from. For me to agree on doctrine, in order to have the Lord's supper would be impossible. I disagree with all doctrines, that are in opposition to scripture, or take too liberal a stance with what scripture is saying based upon an interpretation of what a man said in the past.... (which means all of them in one way or another). My argument of the Lord's supper and open communion does make me a hypocrite. It is arguing doctrine to fit my beliefs, which I have accused the ELCA of doing when it comes to changing doctrine to fit current social trends.


I'm right with you there, brother...there really isn't a Church out there that fits ALL my beliefs...the ELCA comes close, but to be honest it's just a bit to liberal for me...it's closer than the rest though...

[AngelusSax]

This is Unionism and the bible says this is wrong.

Because Jesus never prayed that his disciples be one as He and the Father are one... no... he said "Let them bicker about things that don't alter if they believe in me and have received salvation of their souls and never be united in me."

Until I am convinced otherwise, my stance is that Paul is referring not to doctrine, but that those who do not believe in Christ should not partake of the Lord's supper

I believe that is true. The only other warning I read from actual Scripture (and even though I'm Lutheran, I don't equate the BOC with actual Scripture) is that Paul is warning those who are eating their fill and drinking until they are drunk and not letting others partake, to stop doing that.