Searching...

[MrJim]

In looking for a church it seems I keep hittin' walls. Now I do have an strong interest in the Roman Catholic church, mostly for presence in the Eucharist. My wife is staunchly against it.

The Anglican/Episcopal seems so fragmented and wrecked that I didn't look there long.

I had always dismissed lutherans (mennonite prejudice-I'm trying to do better), but I guess being lutheran isn't about luther, is it?:doh:

I've always had admiration for the LCMS (especially since I am a Missourian;)) and their conservative stand.

I'd like to visit but the closest is 40 miles away. Get this: In our town there are 7 Lutheran churches, and all are ELCA. I am somewhat conservative and am not at all at ease with women pastors, which many of these have.

I guess that congregations would vary, and that there are probably conservative elca congregations, especially with 7 in one town (less than 30K population).

Anyhow, just looking for suggestions/guidance here.

Thanks

[Melethiel]

Not all ELCA congregations are bad...my advice would be to at least pay a visit to some of them, and see their stance.

[LilLamb219]

Is there a Wels church?

[Melethiel]

Or that. ^

[Protoevangel]

In looking for a church it seems I keep hittin' walls. Now I do have an strong interest in the Roman Catholic church, mostly for presence in the Eucharist. My wife is staunchly against it.
You would have no interest in the Lutheran Church then.

From our Small Catechism:

Q. What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
A. 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.

And from the Augsburg Confession (what every Lutheran Church confesses):

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

Where we differ from the Roman Catholics is that we do not claim that the bread and wine stop being bread and wine, and are "changed"into the Body and Blood. We teach and confess, however, that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the Lord's Supper.

[MrJim]

You would have no interest in the Lutheran Church then.

From our Small Catechism:

Q. What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
A. 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.

And from the Augsburg Confession (what every Lutheran Church confesses):

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

Where we differ from the Roman Catholics is that we do not claim that the bread and wine stop being bread and wine, and are "changed"into the Body and Blood. We teach and confess, however, that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the Lord's Supper.

I think I could live with that--it is still far ahead of the "symbol" in the baptist/anabaptist churches. It is presence, though different from RC.

[MrJim]

Is there a Wels church?

Nope-and it looks like most of them are in Wisconsin...

[MrJim]

Anyhow, I'm going to work through the Augsburg Confession and see what I come up with.

[BigNorsk]

Anyhow, I'm going to work through the Augsburg Confession and see what I come up with.

The Augsburg Confession is, like many things from that time, a bit difficult to read by itself. It sometimes references things that you probably won't know about.

One big help is if you go to www.bookofconcord.org you see scrolling down the menu below the Formula of Concord the Introduction to the Book of Concord (http://www.bookofconcord.org/intro.html) and the Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions. (http://www.bookofconcord.org/historicalintros.html) Reading them will give you a lot of important information to help you understand.

And I warn you in advance, you will not find Lutherans a monolith in our interpretation of how to read the Augsburg Confession. Some seem to think it is the perfect Lutheran Confession done exactly how the Lutherans would have desired it. I, on the other hand, see it as a document where they gave as much to the RCC as they could without going against their consciences. Matter of fact, Luther actually gave instructions to give up and come home because too much had already been given up when he was asked what to do. So I don't believe you can read the Augsburg Confession as being in the center of the stream of Lutheranism, but you have to see it as paddling as close to the RCC bank of the river as possible.

Others will of course disagree.

Marv

[Chemnitz]

The Evangelical Lutheran Synod (http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/) is a small denomination in fellowship with Wisconsin but which is closer in polity and practice to Old Missouri...

[Protoevangel]

I think I could live with that--it is still far ahead of the "symbol" in the baptist/anabaptist churches. It is presence, though different from RC.
:wave:
What general area do you live? Perhaps a couple extra set of eyes could help you find a good Lutheran Church in your area. If you aren't comfortable making your location public, you could pm me, and I'll help you look for other Confessional/Conservative Synods in your area.

You could also try: http://www.lutheranliturgy.org/

Even though there are about 20 Lutheran churches (several of which are also Missouri) that are closer, I drive to one about 30 miles away. When I was on the road, I would often have to travel even farther. A 40 mile drive on a Sunday morning might not be as bad as you anticipate it to be. I'd give the LCMS church a shot.

[MrJim]

:wave:
What general area do you live? Perhaps a couple extra set of eyes could help you find a good Lutheran Church in your area. If you aren't comfortable making your location public, you could pm me, and I'll help you look for other Confessional/Conservative Synods in your area.

You could also try: http://www.lutheranliturgy.org/

Even though there are about 20 Lutheran churches (several of which are also Missouri) that are closer, I drive to one about 30 miles away. When I was on the road, I would often have to travel even farther. A 40 mile drive on a Sunday morning might not be as bad as you anticipate it to be. I'd give the LCMS church a shot.

PM on the way

[LutherNut]

I think I could live with that--it is still far ahead of the "symbol" in the baptist/anabaptist churches. It is presence, though different from RC.

It is different from RC in that we don't hold to Transubstantiation, which means that the elements of bread and wine physically change into the body and blood of Christ, the elements no longer being present.
But it is very similar to RC in that we actually receive into our mouths to eat and drink the very body and blood of Jesus Christ.
We don't hold to Transubstantiation. We teach "Sacramental Union" of the physical body and blod of Christ in the elements, both being present.

[Edial]

PM on the way
:)

[MrJim]

It is different from RC in that we don't hold to Transubstantiation, which means that the elements of bread and wine physically change into the body and blood of Christ, the elements no longer being present.
But it is very similar to RC in that we actually receive into our mouths to eat and drink the very body and blood of Jesus Christ.
We don't hold to Transubstantiation. We teach "Sacramental Union" of the physical body and blod of Christ in the elements, both being present.

I sounds good to me. Between you and the RC that may seem to be a "great gulf fixed" but for someone from my background they both seem very similar and maybe the Lutheran example may be the right one;).

[MrJim]

I'd rather not start another thread, if I can keep my questions contained here.

I understand that the Lutheran doctrine of election varies from the Reformed. Would someone care to take that on or point to a link please.

I've got a vociferous history in battling calvinists at B/A. I used to be a calvinist (10 years) but returned to the anabaptist POV because I was not persuaded that TULIP was the theme of Christ's ministry & message.

Thanks for all your help-wish my prejudice hadn't been in the way all these years...

[Melethiel]

In a nutshell, Lutherans believe in single predestination - that one can only be saved if God draws them, but that those who are damned are damned by their own rejection of Christ.

[Chemnitz]

We believe that Christ died for all, without exception; for the whole world as the Bible says. We believe that the grace offered in the atonement can be rejected, but we also nbelieve that the faith which receives it is God's gift.

So, we are monergists believing in God as the sole agent in our salvation, as Mel has said.

On the TULIP scale, if forced onto it, we weigh out at about 3, IMO.

Total Depravity - Yes (1)

Unconditional Election - Yes (1)

Limited Atonement - No (0)

Irresistible Grace - Maybe - God gives faith, we don't know why He gives it to some and not to others but it comes through the preaching of the Word. (0.5)

Perseverence of the Saints - Maybe - there is no reason to fear loss of salvation if we have faith and remain ocnstant in our attendance upon Word and Sacrament, not that it is our work. (0.5)

Others may disagree with this.

My own opinion is that our argument with Calvinism has more to do with their implicit commitment to rationalism and apparent legalism, while at the same time their criticism of us would be that we're fideistic and apparently antinomian (this beyond, of course, the sometimes heated exchanges on the means of Grace).

Also, it is very difficult for us not to see all that Calvinists do to "Glorify God" as a kind of works righteousness.

[MrJim]

We believe that Christ died for all, without exception; for the whole world as the Bible says. We believe that the grace offered in the atonement can be rejected, but we also nbelieve that the faith which receives it is God's gift.

So, we are monergists believing in God as the sole agent in our salvation, as Mel has said.

On the TULIP scale, if forced onto it, we weigh out at about 3, IMO.

Total Depravity - Yes (1)

Unconditional Election - Yes (1)

Limited Atonement - No (0)

Irresistible Grace - Maybe - God gives faith, we don't know why He gives it to some and not to others but it comes through the preaching of the Word. (0.5)

Perseverence of the Saints - Maybe - there is no reason to fear loss of salvation if we have faith and remain ocnstant in our attendance upon Word and Sacrament, not that it is our work. (0.5)

Others may disagree with this.

My own opinion is that our argument with Calvinism has more to do with their implicit commitment to rationalism and apparent legalism, while at the same time their criticism of us would be that we're fideistic and apparently antinomian (this beyond, of course, the sometimes heated exchanges on the means of Grace).

Also, it is very difficult for us not to see all that Calvinists do to "Glorify God" as a kind of works righteousness.

Interesting...I understand antinomian but what is "fideistic"?

[Melethiel]

On the TULIP scale, if forced onto it

I think this is an important point...it's rather difficult (IMO) to fit Lutheran theology onto the TULIP scale, because it indicates a very rationalistic viewpoint, while Lutheran theology is full of apparent paradoxes.

[Chemnitz]

I think this is an important point...it's rather difficult (IMO) to fit Lutheran theology onto the TULIP scale, because it indicates a very rationalistic viewpoint, while Lutheran theology is full of apparent paradoxes.

Agreed!

[Chemnitz]

Interesting...I understand antinomian but what is "fideistic"?

Fideism is, basically, religious anti-rationalism...a complete denigration of reason qua reason.

[MrJim]

Fideism is, basically, religious anti-rationalism...a complete denigration of reason qua reason.

Is that what you call someone who accepts "mystery" as a satisfactory answer?

[BigNorsk]

I sounds good to me. Between you and the RC that may seem to be a "great gulf fixed" but for someone from my background they both seem very similar and maybe the Lutheran example may be the right one;).

Actually, I would see the RC and the Baptist beliefs of say the Lord's Supper as closer to each other in the important things than Lutherans are to either.

That would be excluding the real presence where of course the Lutheran and Catholic are closer.

Baptists make the Lord's Supper a work of man, something that is done because it is commanded, an ordinance, Catholics do too. They would see it as a means of grace which of course the Baptists disagree with, but would basically agree with Baptists that it is a work of man.

Now Lutherans, on the other hand, see the Lord's Supper as the work of God, not man. We receive it in faith, but it is decidely not a work of man. We disagree with the Catholics that it is effacious without faith. For that is contrary to justification being by grace alone through faith alone for the glory of Christ alone.

Baptists seem to me to have been concerned that of course we aren't saved by works so they construed there to be nothing more to the Lord's Supper than a memorial, no grace attached. Really from my perspective a new Law for Christians to obey.

Catholics also teach it as if it is a new Law to be obeyed.

But Lutherans see it as pure Gospel, there is no Law which brings condemnation attached to it. Law always brings condemnation, if the Lord's Supper is simply an ordinance, it does not bring freedom from sin with it but bondage and condemnation. To accept the Lord's body and blood through faith is to have faith in the Gospel.

It's actually difficult if you understand the Lutheran position of what the Lord's Supper is to see how it could be without grace. For if you aren't saved by believing that Jesus Christ died for you, what does save you?

In external form, the Lord's Supper in Lutheran congregations is often very similar to that which is performed in Roman Catholic congregations. It isn't surprising that many get their understand of Lutherans from the Roman Catholics, but in the real understanding of what the Lord's Supper really is, I don't know that you find another group as far away from Roman Catholics, for it is the difference between Law and Gospel. And while many protestant groups would seem to prefer to fight to the death about many of the Catholic understandings, they seem to me to be right in lockstep with the Catholics about inserting the Law where it does not belong.

Hope that helps you understand a bit.

Marv

[Edial]

Is that what you call someone who accepts "mystery" as a satisfactory answer?
menno, did you ever consider that you might have a gift of interpreting tongues. :D :)

[Edial]

I'd rather not start another thread, if I can keep my questions contained here.

I understand that the Lutheran doctrine of election varies from the Reformed. Would someone care to take that on or point to a link please.

I've got a vociferous history in battling calvinists at B/A. I used to be a calvinist (10 years) but returned to the anabaptist POV because I was not persuaded that TULIP was the theme of Christ's ministry & message.

Thanks for all your help-wish my prejudice hadn't been in the way all these years...
This is my opinion.
1. The crux of the Calvinism is that Christ did not die for all.
2. That produces a doctrine that Christ hates these who he did not die for.
3. That is explained by the total depravity as per Calvinism where one is incapable to understand the gospel and to repent regardless of Christ telling all to repent.
4. From these it flows that God's drawing is irresistable.
5. And it is concluded by the perseverance of the saints that is basically an OSAS without essense,:) since they cannot at any time really say that they are one of the elect. Their assurance is the end of life, which somehow takes some joy of living one.

Lutheranism believes that Christ died for all, yet many reject him.

That takes the jagged edges off the other points.

I also spent a considerable time and effort in addressing Calvinism in Soteriology, GT even GA.

Thanks,:)
Ed

[MrJim]

menno, did you ever consider that you might have a gift of interpreting tongues. :D :)

^_^

[LutherNut]

We believe that Christ died for all, without exception; for the whole world as the Bible says. We believe that the grace offered in the atonement can be rejected, but we also nbelieve that the faith which receives it is God's gift.

So, we are monergists believing in God as the sole agent in our salvation, as Mel has said.

On the TULIP scale, if forced onto it, we weigh out at about 3, IMO.

Total Depravity - Yes (1)

Unconditional Election - Yes (1)

Limited Atonement - No (0)

Irresistible Grace - Maybe - God gives faith, we don't know why He gives it to some and not to others but it comes through the preaching of the Word. (0.5)

Perseverence of the Saints - Maybe - there is no reason to fear loss of salvation if we have faith and remain ocnstant in our attendance upon Word and Sacrament, not that it is our work. (0.5)

Others may disagree with this.

My own opinion is that our argument with Calvinism has more to do with their implicit commitment to rationalism and apparent legalism, while at the same time their criticism of us would be that we're fideistic and apparently antinomian (this beyond, of course, the sometimes heated exchanges on the means of Grace).

Also, it is very difficult for us not to see all that Calvinists do to "Glorify God" as a kind of works righteousness.

In the TULIP "scale" as you call it, Lutherans do not hold to Unconditional Election. This is double predestination where God has unconditionally predestined some to heaven and some to hell. This is not at all Lutheran teaching but rather Reformed.

The only one of the TULIP's that Lutherans hold is the "T", Total Depravity, that being we are in a state of total helplessness as far as Spiritual matters are concerned. The rest of the "scale" that we hold is closer to the SCURF "scale"

Synergism - we do part and God does part. Lutherans hold that God does it all (0)

Conditional Election - God predestined to heaven those whom He foresaw would remain true to the faith(1)

Unlimited Atonement - Christ died for all humanity, not just for the elect(1)

Resistible Grace - God's grace is given as a free gift that we cannot earn nor merit, but we do have the ability to reject His gift, it is resistible. Lutherans reject the idea that grace is irresistible(1)

Fall - Humanity can and does fall from God's grace, our salvation can be lost by our rejection of His grace(1)

So give TULIP a 1 out of 5 and SCURF a 4 out of 5.

[MrJim]

In the TULIP "scale" as you call it, Lutherans do not hold to Unconditional Election. This is double predestination where God has unconditionally predestined some to heaven and some to hell. This is not at all Lutheran teaching but rather Reformed.

The only one of the TULIP's that Lutherans hold is the "T", Total Depravity, that being we are in a state of total helplessness as far as Spiritual matters are concerned. The rest of the "scale" that we hold is closer to the SCURF "scale"

Synergism - we do part and God does part. Lutherans hold that God does it all (0)

Conditional Election - God predestined to heaven those whom He foresaw would remain true to the faith(1)

Unlimited Atonement - Christ died for all humanity, not just for the elect(1)

Resistible Grace - God's grace is given as a free gift that we cannot earn nor merit, but we do have the ability to reject His gift, it is resistible. Lutherans reject the idea that grace is irresistible(1)

Fall - Humanity can and does fall from God's grace, our salvation can be lost by our rejection of His grace(1)

So give TULIP a 1 out of 5 and SCURF a 4 out of 5.

That is amazingly close if not right on the nose to what I believe...though SCURF is a new term to me. I could live with your 4 outta 5.

As a former calvinist I used to follow the "White Horse Inn" and read Modern Reformation magazine. It was a calvinist/lutheran sort of thing. The lutheran representative was Rod Rosenbladt ("Dad Rod"). It's funny, but they seemed to be a tight bunch united against the arminian/modernist/etc in Christianity, but there does seem to be some significant differences. I do remember on one tape the "P" of TULIP was discussed and they sorta hit a little on the Lutheran point that a person could become apostate-walk away/reject the faith, which is sort of the arminian POV.

[MrJim]

Think I'll go dig out those old Modern Reformation mags--they're from the early to mid '90s but I do remember Dad Rod wrote some Lutheran specific articles (googled and found out he's LCMS).

This continues to get more interesting...

[Chemnitz]

With all due respect, LN, "Unconditional Election" does not imply "double predestination" (a doctrine classical Calvinists don't espouse anyway). The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, is very careful not to ascribe reprobation to the predestination of God; i.e. no one is "elect to damnation".

Unconditional election means simply that God chooses to bestow regeneration and faith upon sinners without regard for any merit on their part; i.e. unconditionally. It does not immediately even touch upon who these sinners are or why they are elect or what happens to those who are not elect.

It is true that any discussion of it in a Calvinist context will lead into a discussion of equal ultimacy, but it's not actually tied to it.

We would do well to understand what others actually believe and deal with those beliefs rather than burning strawmen.

:thumbsup:

[Tetzel]

The Evangelical Lutheran Synod (http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/) is a small denomination in fellowship with Wisconsin but which is closer in polity and practice to Old Missouri...

I thought the ELS was a Norwegian counterpart to the predominantly German WELS

[Jim47]

May I make a suggestion?

Make up a list of the teachings that you hold to be most important, and also a list of the teachings you want to make sure that they don't teach, and then take this list and visit each of the Pastors privately. At least you can pick more wisely that way.

[BigNorsk]

I thought the ELS was a Norwegian counterpart to the predominantly German WELS

I think that would be pretty close. There probably was a bit more separation on whether or not the synod is the church at one time, but the ELS seems to be moving really close to WELS on that point. There's probably as much or more variation withing each synod as between them but status quo always has the advantage of momentum or the lack thereof on its side. If they were combined, I doubt there would be any big move to separate, since they are currently separate there isn't any crises requiring them to combine.

Maybe menno would like to start a nice conservative Lutheran congregation (hint, hint). From my point of view, many from his part of the country tend to be not the best in terms of theology or practice. And there seems to be kind of a regionalization almost without regard to synod. In most areas, if the Lutherans of similar orthodox intrepretations and beliefs would all move to one congregation they could take it over for themselves. You don't necessarily need to start from scratch.

One tip, if taking over an ELCA congregation, take one that was ALC. The ALC retained their right to their property when joining the ELCA so if they leave they own the property. In addition, you would probably find more within the congregation that would agree. I know in this area, a lot of ALC congregations have seriously considered or are considering leaving the ELCA. Congregations that started as LCA or most other congregations in the ELCA don't have the right to keep their property if they leave. There the ELCA would technically have the rights to the property, though I suspect they wouldn't necessarily enforce those rights. I think in LCMS the congregation always owns it's individual property, but would have no claim on synodical property. So any old LCMS congregation would do.

Of course doing such a thing would require, planning, cooperation, and such so the likelihood is it won't happen. Generally, many might agree, but few will cooperate.

Marv

[MrJim]

With all due respect, LN, "Unconditional Election" does not imply "double predestination" (a doctrine classical Calvinists don't espouse anyway). The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, is very careful not to ascribe reprobation to the predestination of God; i.e. no one is "elect to damnation".

Unconditional election means simply that God chooses to bestow regeneration and faith upon sinners without regard for any merit on their part; i.e. unconditionally. It does not immediately even touch upon who these sinners are or why they are elect or what happens to those who are not elect.

It is true that any discussion of it in a Calvinist context will lead into a discussion of equal ultimacy, but it's not actually tied to it.

We would do well to understand what others actually believe and deal with those beliefs rather than burning strawmen.

:thumbsup:

If followed to its logical end the calvinist view of election then the unelected are predestined to damnation. It can be worded however and can be danced around in any way the calvinists like. To say the men were predestined to salvation before the "foundation of the world" says the those who were not elected are automatically sentenced to the pit. Now it can be a "passive" predestination, but is predestined nonetheless. Man is created, there are two ends, if you ain't selected for one you get the other.

RC Sproul addresses this in Chosen by God in Chapter 7 aptly titled: "Double Double Toil & Trouble: Is Predestination Double?". He simply says that elect receive mercy, and the nonelect receive justice. He speaks of the "equal ultimacy", and that it is not the true calvinist view. Be that as it may it is still semantics. Again, man is created, there are two ends, if you ain't selected for one you get the other.

Instead of focusing on calvinist view of election how bout just working on the Lutheran view. I get this everyday at B/A^_^

[MrJim]

May I make a suggestion?

Make up a list of the teachings that you hold to be most important, and also a list of the teachings you want to make sure that they don't teach, and then take this list and visit each of the Pastors privately. At least you can pick more wisely that way.

This is good advice...I just want to make sure I more fully understand the Lutheran theology on some basic subjects. Hate to walk in and assume...

[LutherNut]

I thought the ELS was a Norwegian counterpart to the predominantly German WELS

If my history is accurate (I was never a history buff, so some details could be a bit askew), the ELS, once known as the "Little Norwegian Synod" broke from the Norwegian Synod prior to the merger that formed the ULCA.

The ELS was part of the Synodical Conference and was in full fellowship with both WELS and LCMS until after the SC dissolved and WELS broke fellowship with Missouri. ELS retained their fellowship with Wisconsin and broke fellowship with Missouri a couple years later.

(Again, details may be a bit fuzzy, but that is how I recall it.)


Jay

[BigNorsk]

menno,

I think this brief paper (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v1n8.htm)gives an accurate summary of Lutheran doctrine on predestination.

Marv

[Edial]

menno,

I think this brief paper (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v1n8.htm)gives an accurate summary of Lutheran doctrine on predestination.

Marv
I really like it when people quote links.
I sometimes do not read the link itself, but drop it to my favorites, since it usually points to a wealth of really interesting articles.

:)

[MrJim]

Thanks to everyone here for all the links and information. You've been very helpful; I'll check back in after digesting and studying everything.

Jim

[C.F.W. Walther]

Thanks to everyone here for all the links and information. You've been very helpful; I'll check back in after digesting and studying everything.

Jim

Sorry -- I guess I missunderstood you. I thought you were looking for churches in missouri. Didn't realize your were talking about PA