I think I am a Lutheran

[PowderedGold]

I posted this on the main Lutheran forum as well, but I wanted to post is here specifically as well, because the Lutheran church in my town is an ECLA church:

To say that I am a new convert to Christianity is not exactly true. I was converted (from no religious affiliation) about seven years ago but I've since fallen away from my faith. Now I am attempting to reclaim that faith.

Unfortunately, I was converted by a cult called the International Church of Christ or also the Boston Church of Christ. I have no association with that group any longer but nor do I have any church to which I claim membership.

I've been doing a little bit of research into various Christian denominations, looking for one that reflects the things I feel are true about God, Christ, and the Bible. After much searching, it seems to me that the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible is the closest approximation of what I have come to believe is the true nature of our relationship with God.

In particular, I believe that faith in Christ is what provides a person with salvation. I believe faith in Christ and God is the most important thing in the life of any Christian.

The one thing that trips me up, however, is the notion that faith itself is a gift from God. I don't quite understand this. I thought faith was how one received the gifts of God. Was faith a gift given to all people, or just those who are selected? If that's true, and God selects people to be given faith, then how is that any different from predestination since we wouldn't have any choice in the matter? And why would someone even struggle with faith? They would simply have it or they wouldn't.

I hope someone can explain this matter to me a bit more clearly and help me understand.

Also, any advice or insights regarding being a Lutheran would be greatly appreciated. I read the "Why are you a Lutheran?" thread and enjoyed it very much. If anyone else would like to offer me their testimony, on this thread or in a PM, I would appreciate it very much.

Thanks!

-Morgan

[RegularGuy]

Faith as a gift...

Martin Luther saw humanity as throroughly sinful, to the point that there is nothing we can do to redeem ourselves. Our justification is God's work alone and none of our own. We neither earn nor deserve God's favor. It is given to us only as a gift of grace.

Even the faith that allows us to grasp God's is a gift from God. If it were not, then our salvation would be, in some measure our own work and God's grace would be null.

Faith is not a work, since works do not save. Faith is a gift.

Is the gift given to all? Clearly not, since there are some without faith. How and why God chooses those upon whom he bestows the gift of faith is a mystery. God is sovereign and can give his gifts as he will.

Welcome to Christian Forums. I hope that you are blessed here, and that you will find a home in your local Lutheran Church.

[Luther073082]

Yeah Martin Luther had some Calvinistic beliefs. This is one of them.

I'm still struggling as to if I'm more calvanistic or whatever the other one is called. (I can't remember)

[RegularGuy]

Yeah Martin Luther had some Calvinistic beliefs. This is one of them.

I'm still struggling as to if I'm more calvanistic or whatever the other one is called. (I can't remember)
Arminian.

Sometimes, reading the Gospels (especially John) I think that Jesus was a Calvinist.

Sometimes, reading Calvin, I think that he was a Lutheran.

Bottom line: I agree with Luther that salvation is God's work alone.

[Luther073082]

Arminian.

Sometimes, reading the Gospels (especially John) I think that Jesus was a Calvinist.

Sometimes, reading Calvin, I think that he was a Lutheran.

Bottom line: I agree with Luther that salvation is God's work alone.

That is true but it seems to be a hard pill to swallow that accepting or rejecting Christ is something God pre-ordains people to do and the person does not have a choice in the matter?

I mean if that is the case would it not be justifiable to be angry with God for not selecting my parents to be saved?

[RegularGuy]

That is true but it seems to be a hard pill to swallow that accepting or rejecting Christ is something God pre-ordains people to do and the person does not have a choice in the matter?

I mean if that is the case would it not be justifiable to be angry with God for not selecting my parents to be saved?


Luther's great insight was that we do not participate in our own justification.

Calvin went beyond Luther when he postulated that an all-knowing and eternal God would know from eternity who was, or was not saved. Hence, predestination. Taking Calvin's point to the logical extreme we get the idea that God predestined some people to salvation and others to damnation. Luther would not have agreed with that notion. Honestly, I don't think that Calvin would either.

Arminius rightly concluded that a God who predestines some people to eternal damnation would be a monster. Arminius's theology was a necessary corrective to hyper-Calvinist double predestination. Unfortunately, it leads to the idea that we must participate in our own salvation, either by "decision" or by "having faith." This makes faith a work, an idea that is decidedly unLutheran.

In the end, I think that Luther would say that God's will is good and gracious. God desires all people to be saved. Some of us are blessed to realize that in this life. This is why we desire to share the good news of God's grace in Christ Jesus. I don't think that Luther would say your parents were outside of God's grace. God can save whom God chooses.

The thing that keeps Lutherans from being universalists is our recognition of God's sovreignty.

Edit: I had a religion prof in college who described Luther's take on the human will with the analogy of a dog on a rope. The dog is free to do whatever it wishes within the length of the rope. Humans are free to do as they wish within the limit of our sinful nature.

[Luther073082]

Luther's great insight was that we do not participate in our own justification.

Calvin went beyond Luther when he postulated that an all-knowing and eternal God would know from eternity who was, or was not saved. Hence, predestination. Taking Calvin's point to the logical extreme we get the idea that God predestined some people to salvation and others to damnation. Luther would not have agreed with that notion. Honestly, I don't think that Calvin would either.

Arminius rightly concluded that a God who predestines some people to eternal damnation would be a monster. Arminius's theology was a necessary corrective to hyper-Calvinist double predestination. Unfortunately, it leads to the idea that we must participate in our own salvation, either by "decision" or by "having faith." This makes faith a work, an idea that is decidedly unLutheran.

In the end, I think that Luther would say that God's will is good and gracious. God desires all people to be saved. Some of us are blessed to realize that in this life. This is why we desire to share the good news of God's grace in Christ Jesus. I don't think that Luther would say your parents were outside of God's grace. God can save whom God chooses.

The thing that keeps Lutherans from being universalists is our recognition of God's sovreignty.

Edit: I had a religion prof in college who described Luther's take on the human will with the analogy of a dog on a rope. The dog is free to do whatever it wishes within the length of the rope. Humans are free to do as they wish within the limit of our sinful nature.


So we are free to choose Christ but that does not free us from being sinners?

[RegularGuy]

So we are free to choose Christ but that does not free us from being sinners?
We are free to choose Christ, but our choice is not what saves us.

As far as I can tell, though we may grow in holiness (sanctification) we are never free from being sinners.

Simul iustus et peccator (At once saint and sinner) was one of Luther's great mottos.

[Luther073082]

We are free to choose Christ, but our choice is not what saves us.

As far as I can tell, though we may grow in holiness (sanctification) we are never free from being sinners.

Simul iustus et peccator (At once saint and sinner) was one of Luther's great mottos.

Ok so help me get this ironed out, Calvin belived that we are free to choose Christ, but not who saved us. IE, Christ is the only savior. Thats pretty elementry Christianity

Then what do the Arminian's belive in those terms? Of course we can not choose any other savior then Christ, not if we want the salvation to work that is.

[RegularGuy]

Ok so help me get this ironed out, Calvin belived that we are free to choose Christ, but not who saved us. IE, Christ is the only savior. Thats pretty elementry Christianity

Then what do the Arminian's belive in those terms? Of course we can not choose any other savior then Christ, not if we want the salvation to work that is.

Luther believed that we have limited freedom. We cannot do ANYthing to save ourselves.

Calvin believed that we have even less freedom. We are predestined to salvation or damnation. Sometimes Calvin's position is summed up as "Once saved always saved" though I think that's a shallow way to express it.

Arminius, in reaction to Calvin, believed that human beings have free will and can choose to be saved or not.

[Luther073082]

Luther believed that we have limited freedom. We cannot do ANYthing to save ourselves.

Calvin believed that we have even less freedom. We are predestined to salvation or damnation. Sometimes Calvin's position is summed up as "Once saved always saved" though I think that's a shallow way to express it.

Arminius, in reaction to Calvin, believed that human beings have free will and can choose to be saved or not.

We can choose to belive in Christ who saves us. . .

Thats not saving ourselves directly, but that is indirectly saving ourselves is it not?

I have no designs or ideas that I am saving myself. But my choice to belive in Christ does in fact save me by faith.

Is that not indirectly choosing to be saved?

Maybe I'm just too in the laity with too little theological reading to understand this but I don't understand what the difference is?

Christ saves me I don't save me. . . so I agree with Luther

But I choose to belive in Christ so I am choosing to be saved so I agree with Arminus.

I guess the best analogy I can use is a life preserver. I am alone in an ocean of sin. God has tossed me a life preserver called Christ. I choose to grab on to the life preserver or to just leave it alone. Grabbing on is a choice to be saved but the life preserver does the saving. So how are those in conflict?

And Calvin is saying that people are born with either a life vest given by God or nothing and no life preserver? HUH?

[RegularGuy]

We can choose to belive in Christ who saves us. . .


Not according to Luther.

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, sanctified and kept me in the faith..." (Small Catechism, Explanation to the Third Article of the Creed)


Thats not saving ourselves directly, but that is indirectly saving ourselves is it not?

Lutheran doctrine denies that we have any role in our salvation whatever. A pastor I know says "If we can save ourselves even a little, the cross of Christ is of no avail."

Christ saves me I don't save me. . . so I agree with Luther


As far as that goes, yes.


But I choose to belive in Christ so I am choosing to be saved so I agree with Arminus.


Yes, but not with Luther. Arminius had a much higher estimation of human nature and free will than did Luther.

I guess the best analogy I can use is a life preserver. I am alone in an ocean of sin. God has tossed me a life preserver called Christ. I choose to grab on to the life preserver or to just leave it alone. Grabbing on is a choice to be saved but the life preserver does the saving. So how are those in conflict?


That's Arminian. Luther would say that we are drowning in an ocean of sin and Jesus fishes us out.


And Calvin is saying that people are born with either a life vest given by God or nothing and no life preserver? HUH?

Pretty much.

[Luther073082]

Then why would a loving God not choose to save everyone by giving them the gift of true faith?

[RegularGuy]

We don't know who God chooses to save eternally.

As I said, the thing that keeps Lutherans from being universalists is our recognition of the sovereignty of God. God can save whom he will. We trust that God's will is good and gracious.

We are saved by God's grace in Jesus Christ. This grace becomes active in us by the gift of faith. Why some receive the gift of faith and others do not is a mystery.

Who God has chosen to save is also a mystery.

I'm trusting in God.

[Luther073082]

We don't know who God chooses to save eternally.

As I said, the thing that keeps Lutherans from being universalists is our recognition of the sovereignty of God. God can save whom he will. We trust that God's will is good and gracious.

We are saved by God's grace in Jesus Christ. This grace becomes active in us by the gift of faith. Why some receive the gift of faith and others do not is a mystery.

Who God has chosen to save is also a mystery.

I'm trusting in God.

Well then I will have to say that I can not in good concious agree with Luther. Because I do not know how I can tell someone that God in fact loves them when he has choosen to withhold from them that which is how they can be saved.

Maybe its partially due to me being upset that my parents are unlikely to be saved but I can not belive a God of love would hand me my faith and leave my family out to dry while still supposidly loving my family. If my family chooses to reject Christ that has apparently been their choice and they have made it. Then God loves them but they rejected him by choice. However if God on the other hand gives me a gift of my faith but withholds from my family that same gift by which they may be saved then therefore God does not love them.

Plus this entire concept renders John 3:16 - 18 invalid as Jesus says he came to save the WORLD. And also adds that those who accept him will be saved but those who reject him will be condemend. If God has not given them the faith they are not really rejecting him they are only demonstrating that God has not given them a gift of faith. Thereby rendering the scripture completly untrue. . .

It also counters 1 Tim. 2:3-4 Which says This is good and pleases God our savior who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God wants all men to be saved but yet the only way we can possibly belive in Christ is through a gift that only give to some, therefore the scripture is untrue because God can give that gift to all.

What scripture does Luther use to counter this?

[RegularGuy]

Well then I will have to say that I can not in good concious agree with Luther. Because I do not know how I can tell someone that God in fact loves them when he has choosen to withhold from them that which is how they can be saved.


A cool thing about being a Lutheran is that we can,in good conscience, disagree with Luther.

Some of your issue may be your understanding of the working of faith. My understanding is that salvation is a gift of grace, not a work of any kind, not a work of the Law, not even a work of faith.

I think that faith is a gift by which we know we are justified. Not having the gift of faith does not mean we are not saved, because we are saved by grace. Lack of faith only means that we have not apprehended the grace of God in ourselves.

I personally believe that faith is a gift for this life, not the next. (Who needs faith when you see God face-to-face?)


Maybe its partially due to me being upset that my parents are unlikely to be saved but I can not belive a God of love would hand me my faith and leave my family out to dry while still supposidly loving my family. If my family chooses to reject Christ that has apparently been their choice and they have made it. Then God loves them but they rejected him by choice. However if God on the other hand gives me a gift of my faith but withholds from my family that same gift by which they may be saved then therefore God does not love them.


My advice (and it's worth just as much as you paid for it!) is to pray that your parents will come to faith, but trust God for their salvation.


Plus this entire concept renders John 3:16 - 18 invalid as Jesus says he came to save the WORLD. And also adds that those who accept him will be saved but those who reject him will be condemend. If God has not given them the faith they are not really rejecting him they are only demonstrating that God has not given them a gift of faith. Thereby rendering the scripture completly untrue. . .


Luther preached some good sermons on John 3:16 ff. Two of them are here:

http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/luther_john03v16to21.html

The second one in particular may help you understand his take on faith and grace.


It also counters 1 Tim. 2:3-4 Which says This is good and pleases God our savior who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God wants all men to be saved but yet the only way we can possibly belive in Christ is through a gift that only give to some, therefore the scripture is untrue because God can give that gift to all.

What scripture does Luther use to counter this?

If I understand Luther aright, he made a distinction between temporal and eternal salvation. He applied 1 Tim 2:3-5 to temporal salvation (that is, the knowledge of salvation in this life, not the actuality of salvation in the next).

[Luther073082]

A cool thing about being a Lutheran is that we can,in good conscience, disagree with Luther.

Some of your issue may be your understanding of the working of faith. My understanding is that salvation is a gift of grace, not a work of any kind, not a work of the Law, not even a work of faith.

Yes but grace is given through faith that is the rule. Like the life preserver analogy. God tosses out the life preserver, and you can be arrogent and keep swimming cause you like the water (the sin). Or you can grab on and God can pull you in. Now am I saving myself by grabbing on, in a way some would say yes but ultimatly I'm not saved unless God actually tosses out the life preserver and pulls it in. So when thought about that way I'm not saving myself, just accepting God's offer to save me.


I think that faith is a gift by which we know we are justified. Not having the gift of faith does not mean we are not saved, because we are saved by grace. Lack of faith only means that we have not apprehended the grace of God in ourselves.

I think of having the gift of faith as having a great faith. Someone like paul who can be shoved in a cold jail cell and be starving and just shrug it off like "Oh well its only temporary, God will care for me." The gift of faith means you have a higher ability to trust God more then others.


I personally believe that faith is a gift for this life, not the next. (Who needs faith when you see God face-to-face?)

But if you do not have faith in this life, you will not be saved. My parents do not have faith, they do not belive that the God of the bible is real. My mother has even asked me what gives God the right to tell her how to live. She lacks that faith because she has an arrogent spirit, almost as if she belives she is equal to God.


My advice (and it's worth just as much as you paid for it!) is to pray that your parents will come to faith, but trust God for their salvation.

Its something I pray for every day. But that doesn't make it any easier. My mom nearly died a couple months ago . . . I was afraid not because of losing her but because she was not saved. As I said before I'd happly die on the cross myself if it would only save my family.



Luther preached some good sermons on John 3:16 ff. Two of them are here:

http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/luther_john03v16to21.html

The second one in particular may help you understand his take on faith and grace.

I'll have to take a look at them when I get time.


If I understand Luther aright, he made a distinction between temporal and eternal salvation. He applied 1 Tim 2:3-5 to temporal salvation (that is, the knowledge of salvation in this life, not the actuality of salvation in the next).

So God wants other people to know that others are saved so he can go "ahh bugger off" when eternity rolls around? I don't think so. . .

I did some reading on Luther's views and the writers of the papers I read never actually seemd to apply any scripture but just used the reason that if we have free will then God's will can't always be done. And then when it comes to how a God of Love could purposefully send people to hell they answer "I don't know" Thats ridiculous. . .

Here is how God's will is done with 6 billlion people who all have free will. Since God knows how all people will react especially he simpily does his will in, around, and through that of our human wills. But God simpily can not just omit giving someone the gift of faith that they need in order to be saved yet claim that he loves them.

[FaithfulRemnant]

Welcome. I'm traditional "high church protestant"(preferring the old rites/mass, prayers, hymns, etc), primarily Lutheran or Anglican in conviction, yet open to low-church revival movements within these churches. I have felt most fulfilled and blessed in this context of faith. Your journey sounds similar to mine. I've been to many different churches and studied a variety of creeds, but I don't see myself moving beyond the borders of classic and traditional Protestant faith, since it's these churches with which I most identify in doctrine and practice through my study of the Bible.

[Izdaari]

My church is Assemblies of God, and I'm very happy there, because at my local church the teaching and the love are strong (I cannot say for the denomination as a whole, having no previous experience with it), though theologically I'd probably be a better fit as a charismatic emergent ELCA Lutheran (is there even such a thing?).

[RegularGuy]

My church is Assemblies of God, and I'm very happy there, because at my local church the teaching and the love are strong (I cannot say for the denomination as a whole, having no previous experience with it), though theologically I'd probably be a better fit as a charismatic emergent ELCA Lutheran (is there even such a thing?).

I've met a few. :)

[Izdaari]

I've met a few. :)
That's encouraging... up to a point. :D

I'm reminded of a famous quote:
“A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation”

Could it be that maybe, somewhere, there exists a church full of them? :ebil:

[Tofferer]

For charismatic breakout Lutheran, I would point to LCMC's Lifesong Church of California. However, that is more of an aside.

Regarding this thread. I am really surprised at the lack of scripture I've seen. Especially how Ephesians 2:8,9 has been overlooked with regards to faith being a gift of God.

Ephesians 2:8,9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.

This tells me that unless God provides me the faith to believe, I simply can not believe. Oddly, I find comfort in the fact that God does provide us the faith to believe. Indeed, without this gift of faith to start with, how are we even capable of accepting salvation?

[Izdaari]

Regarding this thread. I am really surprised at the lack of scripture I've seen. Especially how Ephesians 2:8,9 has been overlooked with regards to faith being a gift of God.

Ephesians 2:8,9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.

This tells me that unless God provides me the faith to believe, I simply can not believe. Oddly, I find comfort in the fact that God does provide us the faith to believe. Indeed, without this gift of faith to start with, how are we even capable of accepting salvation?
I agree that's a key scripture, but it isn't something I feel much need to bring up except when witnessing to non-believers because I assume most Christians, and certainly all Lutherans, basic as it is to Lutheran theology, constantly bear it in mind.

[Tofferer]

That is one assumption I've learned not to make. You would laugh at the number of times I've been told that the Lord's prayer is not in the Bible. I usually ask whether they want to consult Matthew or Luke. One of my more favorite of those encounters was one of my in-laws shortly after my wife and I got married. They told me that the Lord's prayer "thingy" (thier words, not mine) was sweet, but it had no scripture to support it. I ask them to tell me how Jesus instructed the diciples to pray. So much for that argument.

[Izdaari]

Ok, Tofferer, so there's a lot of ignorance in the world. I remember Jay Leno asking someone standing in front of the Space Needle, "What is that building behind you?", and they had absolutely no idea. Someone else he asked thought Hitler's first name was Timothy.

But even so, I assure you, constantly reminding me of Ephesians 2:8,9 will accomplish nothing, as I already constantly remind myself of it. If a person is a Christian, I'm going to assume they know that one... until they say something that indicates they don't, in which case I'll be happy to enlighten them.

Btw, thanks for telling me about the Lifesong Church. I'd love to give it a try. Unfortunately I don't live in California... er, make that fortunately, for other reasons. I guess I can hope and pray for it to spread to the Seattle area.

[rockytrails]

Yeah Martin Luther had some Calvinistic beliefs. This is one of them.

I'm still struggling as to if I'm more calvanistic or whatever the other one is called. (I can't remember)
YOUR FUNNY

Dr Luther was teaching theology long before Little Calvin even got out of his dirty Diapers.

Luther did not learn any thing from Calvin and what he learned from his contemporary Zwingli was this .

That he had a" different spirit than Lutherans"

and now some knucle headed so called Lutherans are even willing to commune with those who have that different spirit.

imagine calling one self Lutheran and wanting to commune with those who reject The body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament.
as Zwingli and little dirty bottom (calvin ) who later also did.

[RegularGuy]

YOUR FUNNY

Dr Luther was teaching theology long before Little Calvin even got out of his dirty Diapers.

Luther did not learn any thing from Calvin and what he learned from his contemporary Zwingli was this .

That he had a" different spirit than Lutherans"

and now some knucle headed so called Lutherans are even willing to commune with those who have that different spirit.

imagine calling one self Lutheran and wanting to commune with those who reject The body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament.
as Zwingli and little dirty bottom (calvin ) who later also did.

Your points might be better made, and taken, without the rudeness, put downs and name-calling.

By the way, are you a member of the ELCA or the ELCIC? If not, you aren't allowed to debate in this sub-forum.

http://foru.ms/t3158457-debating-by-conservative-members-is-not-allowed-in-this-liberal-member-forum.html

http://foru.ms/t2962830-members-of-the-lcms-wels-els-lcc-and-other-conservative-lutherans.html

[gtmyers]

Luther's great insight was that we do not participate in our own justification.

Calvin went beyond Luther when he postulated that an all-knowing and eternal God would know from eternity who was, or was not saved. Hence, predestination. Taking Calvin's point to the logical extreme we get the idea that God predestined some people to salvation and others to damnation. Luther would not have agreed with that notion. Honestly, I don't think that Calvin would either.

Arminius rightly concluded that a God who predestines some people to eternal damnation would be a monster. Arminius's theology was a necessary corrective to hyper-Calvinist double predestination. Unfortunately, it leads to the idea that we must participate in our own salvation, either by "decision" or by "having faith." This makes faith a work, an idea that is decidedly unLutheran.

In the end, I think that Luther would say that God's will is good and gracious. God desires all people to be saved. Some of us are blessed to realize that in this life. This is why we desire to share the good news of God's grace in Christ Jesus. I don't think that Luther would say your parents were outside of God's grace. God can save whom God chooses.

The thing that keeps Lutherans from being universalists is our recognition of God's sovreignty.

Edit: I had a religion prof in college who described Luther's take on the human will with the analogy of a dog on a rope. The dog is free to do whatever it wishes within the length of the rope. Humans are free to do as they wish within the limit of our sinful nature.
God justifies (saves) us not based on ANYTHING we do or may do, but He does it out of His love for us. That way God gets all the glory, not us. We don't deserve or earn it at all.

[RegularGuy]

God justifies (saves) us not based on ANYTHING we do or may do, but He does it out of His love for us. That way God gets all the glory, not us. We don't deserve or earn it at all.

:amen:

[gtmyers]

We can choose to belive in Christ who saves us. . .

Thats not saving ourselves directly, but that is indirectly saving ourselves is it not?

I have no designs or ideas that I am saving myself. But my choice to belive in Christ does in fact save me by faith.

Is that not indirectly choosing to be saved?

Maybe I'm just too in the laity with too little theological reading to understand this but I don't understand what the difference is?

Christ saves me I don't save me. . . so I agree with Luther

But I choose to belive in Christ so I am choosing to be saved so I agree with Arminus.

I guess the best analogy I can use is a life preserver. I am alone in an ocean of sin. God has tossed me a life preserver called Christ. I choose to grab on to the life preserver or to just leave it alone. Grabbing on is a choice to be saved but the life preserver does the saving. So how are those in conflict?

And Calvin is saying that people are born with either a life vest given by God or nothing and no life preserver? HUH?
I picture it like this. I was drowning and already went under the water, then Christ reached down and pulled me out of the water. Sometime I think we ponder this issue to much as Christians, just know that since you have faith, you are a Christian. Thats a wonderful assurance!

[BabyLutheran]

I agree, sometimes I think we split hairs too much over this kind of thing. It is definitely not having a childlike faith, is it?

[RevCowboy]

I agree, sometimes I think we split hairs too much over this kind of thing. It is definitely not having a childlike faith, is it?

Well... the childlike faith thing is misrepresented in many Christian circles. When Jesus told the disciples to have faith like a child he was likely holding an infant in his arms, not a 6 year old. Having an unquestioning faith was not what Jesus meant. Rather, he was telling us to realize our total and utter dependence on God, just as an infant totally depends on its parents. In some ways this argues for both infant baptism and the Lutheran understanding of justification. Infants can faith, but it is a faith imputed by God and that is wholly dependent on God.

Conversely Jesus was consistently challenging the dogmatism of the pharisees. He challenged them to think about the point and understand why we believe the things we do.

Mark 2:27 Then he [Jesus] said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

[Edial]

...
To say that I am a new convert to Christianity is not exactly true. I was converted (from no religious affiliation) about seven years ago but I've since fallen away from my faith. Now I am attempting to reclaim that faith.
If you had faith, how do you think you lost it?

What do you think of Peter when he "fell away" after the resurrection and went back to his fishing business?

There is a weak faith ...
RO 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

... which can grow ...
2TH 1:3 We ought always to thank God for you, brothers, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing.


...Unfortunately, I was converted by a cult called the International Church of Christ or also the Boston Church of Christ. I have no association with that group any longer but nor do I have any church to which I claim membership.
In a true sense of the word these guys are "cultish" and not necessarily cults.

Cults are the ones that deviate from the main doctrines of God.

UCC is simply ultra-liberal and Boston Church of Christ ... well, these guys simply want to know how much money you make at your job, so you could tithe properly. :)
They also like "discipling" ... ahem ... owning people, brainwashing them into their church.




I've been doing a little bit of research into various Christian denominations, looking for one that reflects the things I feel are true about God, Christ, and the Bible. After much searching, it seems to me that the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible is the closest approximation of what I have come to believe is the true nature of our relationship with God.
Yes. It is very balanced.
However, they (we) also have cliques, synods and divisions.
But that's our problem, not the Lutheranism problem.

Remember the cultish churches you attended. A need to "belong" is still an easy temptation.
Some see some divisions here and leave for the Eastern Orthodox church, as an example, because they have no division.

Yet, when you visit these forums any disagreement ends with: "Talk to the Priest". End of conversation.

Since no church is perfect (the perfect one is in Heaven) there MUST be disagreements in the church.

If you look at Christ alone, you'll be fine.

In particular, I believe that faith in Christ is what provides a person with salvation. I believe faith in Christ and God is the most important thing in the life of any Christian.
Yes, it is.

Quick question. Are there things that are taught in orthodox Christianity that you disagree with ... you know, stuff like Trinity, salvation by faith alone and so forth?

The one thing that trips me up, however, is the notion that faith itself is a gift from God. I don't quite understand this. I thought faith was how one received the gifts of God.
Just try "by-passing" this notion for now. You are getting into theology, which sometimes confuses more than clarifies.
Look at it this way - faith is manifested when one hears the Gospel and believes.

RO 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

If you believe that "unbelievable" story concerning Christ, then you have faith. :)

To people that have no faith, it is foolishness.

1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

You see, according to the world, only a real idiot would believe that Christ rose from the dead some 2000 years ago.

So, if you are that "idiot" in the eyes of the world, you became one due to faith that you have. :)


Was faith a gift given to all people, or just those who are selected? If that's true, and God selects people to be given faith, then how is that any different from predestination since we wouldn't have any choice in the matter? And why would someone even struggle with faith? They would simply have it or they wouldn't.
Morgan, just drop Calvinism. It will get you nowhere, especially in this state.

According to the plain reading of the Bible ALL can be saved, yet some reject salvation.

If you received the message of Christ and confessed his name, according to Christ, you will be saved.

RO 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Also, just forget the point of not having faith.

Do you believe that Christ can hear you?
Then you believe that He is alive - rose from the dead.

Just make a confession to someone that He is the Lord, as per the text above.

Also, any advice or insights regarding being a Lutheran would be greatly appreciated. I read the "Why are you a Lutheran?" thread and enjoyed it very much. If anyone else would like to offer me their testimony, on this thread or in a PM, I would appreciate it very much.

Thanks!

-Morgan
OK.
I became a Lutheran some 4 years ago.
My background was Baptist.
I did not choose Lutheranism and therefore left the Baptists, I left the Baptists first and THEN Lutheranism appeared.

I became a believer some 17 years ago when someone gave me a Bible. Before that I was a practicing atheist.
Wheh I saw the words of Christ in it, somcehow I believed the whole book.
My salvation came when I called Billy Graham crusade and prayed the dreaded "sinner's prayer" over the phone.
Lutherans reject the "sinner's prayer", but you do not need to agree with them on everything.
There are great amounts of people that are converted this way.
Can't argue with success.

You just came out of the cultish churches.
Just keep your eyes on Jesus, you'll be fine. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Edial]

Wait a minute ...
I just saw that his post was from August. :doh:

All this writing :doh: ... I better drop him a PM. :)

:)

[Edial]

His last activity here was August 18 and he does not accept e-mails.

So, I just PM'd him. Who knows. :)

[RegularGuy]

Wait a minute ...
I just saw that his post was from August. :doh:

All this writing :doh: ... I better drop him a PM. :)

:)
It's all right, Ed. I enjoyed reading it.

You know, God is so good that he can even use Billy Graham and his bad decision theology to bring sinful people into an awareness of God's great and gracious love.

I came across an interesting statement from Luther about heresy recently. Without directly quoting, Luther said that even saints can fall into dangerous doctrinal error without being harmed, so long as they cling in faith to the cross.

[Izdaari]

I came across an interesting statement from Luther about heresy recently. Without directly quoting, Luther said that even saints can fall into dangerous doctrinal error without being harmed, so long as they cling in faith to the cross.
I'm with Luther on that. God cares that we follow Him. I don't think He cares nearly so much that all our theology is correct.