Lutheran doctrine

[katieb2005]

I'm Baptist, can someone explain some basic Lutheran doctrine to me because im considering going to a Lutheran college

[Lotar]

This is a very basic explaination
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/smallcatechism.pdf

Are there any specific explainations you want?

[katieb2005]

how do lutherans differ from catholics?

[Lotar]

how do lutherans differ from catholics?
Where to start?

Faith alone and scripture alone. Those would be the major two.
No praying to or venerating the saints or Mary.

The Lutheran Church was one of the original churches to come out of the Reformation, started by Martin Luther, hense Lutheran.

[Phoebe]

Here's another site.
www.elca.org (http://www.elca.org)

[ByzantineDixie]

how do lutherans differ from catholics?

I grew up Catholic and became a Lutheran once I married. I used to joke to my Catholic family that all I had to give up was Mary and the Pope...but there are some other differences. Here are just a few...

1) The most significant in my view is "salvation by grace through faith". When I was growing up Catholic I never knew if I would be "good enough" to get to heaven. As a Lutheran I now understand that it isn't about my "goodness"...its about God's "goodness", mercy and grace. I am going to heaven! :clap:
2) While Lutherans believe in the "Real Presence" during communion, we do not believe in transubstantiation.
3) Lutherans have only maintained 2 of the seven sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion.
4) We do not pray to the saints asking for their intercession (the temple curtain was torn upon Christ's sacrifice...we have a direct conduit to God through Jesus). We do not pray for the dead.
5) No mortal sins or venial sins. All sin is sin and offends God.
6) No Holy Days of Obligation...no sin if you miss mass on Sunday...no requirement for private confession although private confession with the pastor is available if you request it.
7) As Lotar stated...sola scriptura. Lutherans take all doctrine from Scripture and follow systematic rules for interpreting scripture. We do not rely on tradition. Do you know that I was a Catholic from birth until after college and never, ever was instructed to read the Bible?

I think you would enjoy the challenge a Lutheran college would offer. It's good to understand where the other guy is coming from...God's best to you as you make your decision about school.

Rose

[sola fide]

Would it be fair to say that Melancthon was more of the forerunner of the Lutheran church than Luther himself? Just curious.

Grace.

[JVAC]

I grew up Catholic and became a Lutheran once I married. I used to joke to my Catholic family that all I had to give up was Mary and the Pope...but there are some other differences. Here are just a few...

1) The most significant in my view is "salvation by grace through faith". When I was growing up Catholic I never knew if I would be "good enough" to get to heaven. As a Lutheran I now understand that it isn't about my "goodness"...its about God's "goodness", mercy and grace. I am going to heaven! :clap:
2) While Lutherans believe in the "Real Presence" during communion, we do not believe in transubstantiation.
3) Lutherans have only maintained 2 of the seven sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion.
4) We do not pray to the saints asking for their intercession (the temple curtain was torn upon Christ's sacrifice...we have a direct conduit to God through Jesus). We do not pray for the dead.
5) No mortal sins or venial sins. All sin is sin and offends God.
6) No Holy Days of Obligation...no sin if you miss mass on Sunday...no requirement for private confession although private confession with the pastor is available if you request it.
7) As Lotar stated...sola scriptura. Lutherans take all doctrine from Scripture and follow systematic rules for interpreting scripture. We do not rely on tradition. Do you know that I was a Catholic from birth until after college and never, ever was instructed to read the Bible?

I think you would enjoy the challenge a Lutheran college would offer. It's good to understand where the other guy is coming from...God's best to you as you make your decision about school.

Rose
Since 1999 Lutherans and Catholics have been in total agreement with regards to #1. In #2 Lutherans don't enforce it, yet most don't believe it. With regards to #3 Luther did taught that it was good to ask the saints/mary to pray for us (Just as we ask the living to pray for us), but we must mind that we and all must ultamately answer to the Godhead.

Ultimately one must refer to the Book of Concord to get a real good grasp on Lutheranism. Yet, we Lutherans are "Heretics" living apart from the true Church with respect to the view of the Church of Rome. I'll write further into this, when I get some time.

[ByzantineDixie]

Would it be fair to say that Melancthon was more of the forerunner of the Lutheran church than Luther himself? Just curious.

Grace.

I look forward to being further educated regarding this question. Deep in the recesses of my aging mind I recall someone once making a comment like "Lutherans subscribing to the unaltered Augsburg confessions are more aligned with Luther and those subscribing to the altered Augsburg confessions are more aligned with Melancthon."

LCMS and ELCA (according to their website) and I imagine WELS, all subscribe to the Unaltered Augsburg Confessions.

Rose

[Lotar]

Since 1999 Lutherans and Catholics have been in total agreement with regards to #1. In #2 Lutherans don't enforce it, yet most don't believe it. With regards to #3 Luther did taught that it was good to ask the saints/mary to pray for us (Just as we ask the living to pray for us), but we must mind that we and all must ultamately answer to the Godhead.

Ultimately one must refer to the Book of Concord to get a real good grasp on Lutheranism. Yet, we Lutherans are "Heretics" living apart from the true Church with respect to the view of the Church of Rome. I'll write further into this, when I get some time.
Actually, we aren't in agreement about #1. We both hold grace alone, but they hold faith + works.

[ByzantineDixie]

Since 1999 Lutherans and Catholics have been in total agreement with regards to #1. In #2 Lutherans don't enforce it, yet most don't believe it. With regards to #3 Luther did taught that it was good to ask the saints/mary to pray for us (Just as we ask the living to pray for us), but we must mind that we and all must ultamately answer to the Godhead.

Ultimately one must refer to the Book of Concord to get a real good grasp on Lutheranism. Yet, we Lutherans are "Heretics" living apart from the true Church with respect to the view of the Church of Rome. I'll write further into this, when I get some time.

You know, I thought there was a statement by the Catholic church regarding salvation by grace...I just didn't hear much after that. Thanks for correcting me.

I noted the discussion on transubstantiation in the communion thread. I had not heard that Luther held this position. In fact, the Lutheran doctrine books (Mueller, Kolb, Koehler) I have speak vehemently against transubstantiation, as well as consubstantiation. I am very interested in reading the Luther work referenced in that thread...what was that...Babylon something or other?

I'll also check that praying to the saints thing out, too. As you may know, Luther may have said it was good...in practice this is not at all encouraged.

Now you know that I am gonna have some fun with this new information...a cleverly posed "But didn't Luther say....?" question will cause some scrambling for the texts at our next Wednesday evening teaching! ;)

Rose

[Lotar]

Just to make it clear, there hasn't really been much of a change in Catholic doctrine on this subject.

Lutheran View
Faith => works + salvation

Catholic View
Faith + works => Salvation


The Catholic church agreed with the Lutheran church that salvation is by Grace alone, through faith. Which is not any change from their position. We believe salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. If the document had alone after faith, then we would have been in agreement. That document was a step in the right direction, but neither sides position changed.

[ByzantineDixie]

The Catholic church agreed with the Lutheran church that salvation is by Grace alone, through faith. Which is not any change from their position. We believe salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. If the document had alone after faith, then we would have been in agreement. That document was a step in the right direction, but neither sides position changed.

Ahhh...thanks for illustrating the distinction. I remember now reading the press release on this and then being surprised why I hadn't heard more buzz.

Rose

[JVAC]

Luther's Rose;

The Babylonian Captivity (Pagan Servitude of the Church), is the document that Luther spent quite a bit of time and energy on his possition. Here as you might have seen from my last posts, he clearly argues for freedom of a Christian. Even though it can be argued that Luther tried to destroy the doctrine.

In regards to praying to Saints to pray for us, it is not a very common practice in the Lutheran Church of today. Luther wrote that we should only pray to them knowing that we needn't thier help, but that we ask them, as brothers/sisters in Christ, just as we ask those alive. It is a good idea not to teach it though, for some can be misled by it, but if you have a good understanding of your Baptismal Freedom then feel free to do it. I sometimes pray the Rosary, which has petitions to Mary, and it works well for me.

That Wednessday group sounds very fun!!!

[Lotar]

Try reading RC Sproul's book, Faith Alone, he spends a couple of chapters explaining how Catholics haven't changed their view, that the document just skirts the real issue, the one we disagree with. Catholics have always believed in grace alone, though in quite a different way than we do. We use the same words but they have different meaning. In the same way, they have always believed that faith is part of salvation, but not alone.

[JVAC]

Yeah, I remeber the whole argument of Luther adding "alone" even though there was no presence of the word "sola". He justified it, in his eyes, by saying the text implies it. (I worded it this way to maintain a little neutrality)

[Lotar]

Yeah, I remeber the whole argument of Luther adding "alone" even though there was no presence of the word "sola". He justified it, in his eyes, by saying the text implies it. (I worded it this way to maintain a little neutrality)
It's not an arguement about Luther's translation :D It's about the whole idea of faith alone. We believe we are saved through faith, they believe we are saved through faith and works, we both believe we are saved by grace alone. So signing a document that says we both believe we are saved by grace alone through faith, means absolutely nothing. Neither of us has changed our positions.

BTW, on Luther's translation, there were something like 4 or 5 authorized Catholic translations in other languages that added the "alone," well before Luther. It wasn't like he just descided to start adding things to the bible. Plus, in context, it doesn't change the meaning.

[Lotar]

Luther's Rose;

The Babylonian Captivity (Pagan Servitude of the Church), is the document that Luther spent quite a bit of time and energy on his possition. Here as you might have seen from my last posts, he clearly argues for freedom of a Christian. Even though it can be argued that Luther tried to destroy the doctrine.

In regards to praying to Saints to pray for us, it is not a very common practice in the Lutheran Church of today. Luther wrote that we should only pray to them knowing that we needn't thier help, but that we ask them, as brothers/sisters in Christ, just as we ask those alive. It is a good idea not to teach it though, for some can be misled by it, but if you have a good understanding of your Baptismal Freedom then feel free to do it. I sometimes pray the Rosary, which has petitions to Mary, and it works well for me.

That Wednessday group sounds very fun!!!
Does the ELCA alow prayer to saints? The LCMS does not.

It is not to be advised or tolerated that one should call upon the departed saints to intercede for him or should teach others to do so, but rather to be condemned and people are to be taught to avoid it. Therefore I, too, shall not advise it and burden my conscience with other peoples' iniquities. It was exceedingly bitter for me to tear myself away from worship of saints, for I was completely steeped and drowned in it. But the light of the Gospel is now so clear that henceforth no on has any excuse if he remains in darkness.
-Martin Luther

[Phoebe]

The ELCA does not promote praying through Mary or the saints. Neither have I actually heard the church saying we aren't to do this.

I am more interested in learning good meditation practices during prayer.

[JVAC]

Luther, preached against the worship of saints, and but he admonished people that they could pray to them, just as they ask the saints living to pray for them. We musn't worship them, but we may ask them to pray for us. Also, it is mostly not taught, because people don't take the time to figure out the difference about praying to a Saint, vs. praying to God. Such as, you don't ask saints to grant you things, just as you don't go to a fellow church member and say "give me healing". You ask them to pray to the Father on your behalf, just as you would sign up for prayer concerns.

[Lotar]

Luther taught that we shouldn't ask them to intercede for us. How does that differ from praying to them?
Do you have a quote of him teaching that, and a date of when he said it? Luther took back a lot of things he taught earlier.

[JVAC]

I read, about it when I read about his view on the Rosary, I am trying to find it, but I don't think I did a good job at keeping track of it. Hopefully I can find it soon, with out reading the whole thing again.

[theseed]

I'm Baptist, can someone explain some basic Lutheran doctrine to me because im considering going to a Lutheran college
I'm Baptist, and I went to a Baptist college (loosely), but they allowed academic freedom which made it easy for all types of Christians.

[katieb2005]

your birthday is the same day as mine :) what college did you go to?

[Phoebe]

FYI

The Lutherans are taking over.

;) :P

[Phoebe]

katieb,have you found the answers you were looking for?

[orthedoxy]

Here is a link showing Luther praying to mary.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM

[JVAC]

LOL, Erasmus is in the link name!!!!!

[Lotar]

Here is a link showing Luther praying to mary.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM
But you will notice that all the references of praying to her are well before 1530. To this day, Lutherans don't have a problem with honoring Mary, but I had never heard of a Lutheran praying to Mary and the Saints before. It's even condemned in the Augsburg confessions.

Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.

1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. 2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.

5] This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. 6] There is, however, disagreement on certain Abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; 7] although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. 8] For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. 9] But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

[orthedoxy]

I don't think Lutherans believe everything Luther taught. For example most Lutherans don’t believe in the will being in bondage, or the books of James and Hebrew shouldn’t belong in the Bible.

[Lotar]

I don't think Lutherans believe everything Luther taught. For example most Lutherans don’t believe in the will being in bondage, or the books of James and Hebrew shouldn’t belong in the Bible.Any Lutheran who does't believe in the bondage of will is not in line with the teachings of their church. Luther considered that James and Revelations may not be inspired, but his contemporaries talked him out of that line of thought.

No, Lutherans don't hold everything Luther taught but they hold to the Ausgburg confession, and give his opinion great weight.

[Phoebe]

I think Luther may have also been anti- Semitic. Those teachings have been tossed, I believe.

[Lotar]

True, but during his time he was considered to be too nice towards the Jews. Anti-semeticism was the norm back then, it's sort like how if Abe Lincon was alive today, he would be considered a bigot.

[Phoebe]

You're probably correct on that.

Have you read much of Pagan Servitude of the Church? I'm just getting started on it. I'm still reading about Communion. (Sacrament of the Altar)

[Lotar]

Nope, I haven't read that one.

[JVAC]

I don't think Lutherans believe everything Luther taught. For example most Lutherans don’t believe in the will being in bondage, or the books of James and Hebrew shouldn’t belong in the Bible.

Actually, the books were the Epistle of St. James and the Epistle of St. Jude. We see this from reading the prefaces that he wrote:

Preface to the Epistle of St. James; Martin Luther

I think highly of the epistle of James and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God's law. Yet, to give my own opinion without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship, for the following reasons: Firstly, because, in direct oppostion to St. Paul and all the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up hi son. St. Paul, on the contrary, in Romans 4:3, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, by his faith alone, the proof being in Genesis 15:6, which was before he sacrificed his son.....This defect proves that the epistle is not of apostolic provenance.
Secondly, because, in the whole length of its teaching, not once does it give Christians any instruction or reminder of the passion, resurrection, or spirit of Christ......
The epistle of James, however, only drives you to the law and its works. He mixes one thing with another to such an extent that I suspect some good and pious man assembled a few things said by disciples of the apostles, and then put them down in black and white; or perhaps the epistle was written by someone else who made notes of a sermon of his. He calls the Law a law of freedom, although St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, wrath, death, and sin.......


...I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone placing him or raising him where he likes, for the epistle contains many excellent passages...
Preface to the epistle of St. Jude; Martin Luther

No one can deny that this epistle is an excerpt from, or copy of, the second epistle of St. Peter, for all he says is nearly the same over again. Moreover, he speaks of the apostles as would a disciple of a much later date. he quotes words and events which are found nowhere in Scripture, and which moved the fathers to reject this epistle from the canon. Moreover, the apostle Jude did not go into Greek-speaking lands, but into Persia; and it is said that he could not write Greek. Hence, although I value the book, yet it is not essential to reckon it amongthe canonical book that lay the foundation of faith.

[JVAC]

You're probably correct on that.

Have you read much of Pagan Servitude of the Church? I'm just getting started on it. I'm still reading about Communion. (Sacrament of the Altar)
That is one of his best works!!! I like it a lot.

[JVAC]

how do lutherans differ from catholics?
Now since I have nothing better to do, and I just drank a twenty ounce Sprite, I will write my discertation.

First and foremost, we differ from Roman Christians because unlike them, the Edict of Worms calls us heretics, and are outside the Church. Lets find out why...

Basically because Martin Luther did not recant. "I will not and cannot recant, to go against conscience is neither safe nor sane. Here I stand I can do no other" (now this is all basically Jamesified, Luther didn't say those exact words but pretty darn close.) This failure to recant his writings, most noteably the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Freedom of a Christian Man, 95 Theses, created what was known as the 'Edict of Worms' wherein, Luther and all those that listened to him were classified as flamming heretics.

You can find out deeper reasons by actually reading the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (Pagan Servitude of the Church). Here he teaches that there is not seven sacraments, as is still the case in the Roman Church of today, but only two, as instituded by Jesus the Christ of God. Not only did he go against Church teaching of seven Sacraments but he challenged the Dogma of Transubstantiation championed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Oddly enough, he was trying to clean up the church, and did not intend to separate. To this day the Lutheran Church still hasn't seperated from the Roman Catholic Church!!! Luther actually pre-Worms was an avid Papist.

Yet, in the end, Lutherans were cast away from the Church of Rome, by Pope Leo X. So today we stand apart from the church in quite a few ways, but the main reason we are not Roman Christians is because our leader was a "Heretic".





(No harm is ment by this post to anyone, I view the Church of Rome in high regards now, but back in the 1500's its a different story. That would be a fun thread to discuss in of itself!!)

[orthedoxy]

Phoebe here’s what Luther said regarding Jews.

"Burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; destroy their houses; confiscate their ready money; take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; forbid their holding any religious services under penalty of death; and if that does not help matters, hunt them out of the country like mad dogs" ("Tracts against Jews," 1543).

Here is some more of Luther quote regarding scripture.
In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)
Lutherans believe in freewill here is a link from answers in action(Lutheran site) who are very much anti Calvinist. Therfore not all Luterans believe like Luther.
Also Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1521 so he prayed to Mary while he was a protestant.

[Lotar]

Phoebe here’s what Luther said regarding Jews.

"Burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; destroy their houses; confiscate their ready money; take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; forbid their holding any religious services under penalty of death; and if that does not help matters, hunt them out of the country like mad dogs" ("Tracts against Jews," 1543).

A couple things.
1.) Quoting one sentence from Luther most likely completely takes it out of the context and changes the meaning of the sentence.
2.) If you have read any of Luther's works, you will see that he often writes in such a way to make points.
3.) No one denys that he did make some anti-semetic statements.



Here is some more of Luther quote regarding scripture.
In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)
Later in his life Luther changed his mind on the subject. I'm on my way out, but I'll find the quote later.


Lutherans believe in freewill here is a link from answers in action(Lutheran site) who are very much anti Calvinist. Therfore not all Luterans believe like Luther.
Lutherans believe in predestination and freewill. We are much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism.

Quote:7. GOD'S ELECTION OF GRACE

We confess that those in this life who, through the Gospel, have been called, enlightened,
sanctified, and preserved in the true faith, have from eternity been elected according to
God's unmerited love to this adoption as His children, and have been chosen in Christ
"before the creation of the world" to be heirs of everlasting life. Therefore Christians can
and should be sure of their salvation, since God's promise is steadfast and His gracious
election to salvation stands firm. We reject the teaching that there is an eternal election to
damnation (double predestination) and that the offer of salvation which God makes
through the Gospel is not earnestly intended for all people. In faith we accept the teaching
of Scripture that those who are saved are saved by the grace of God alone, and that those
who are lost are lost because of their own unbelief and hardness of heart. See Rom. 8:26-
39, Eph. 1:3-6, 2 Thes. 2:13-14, 1 Tim. 1:15, 2 Tim. 1:12, Ezek. 33:11, Hos. 13:9.
http://www.evluthsyn.org/ (http://www.evluthsyn.org/)

Quote:10. We teach that conversion consists in this, that a man, having learned from the Law of God that he is a lost and condemned sinner, is brought to faith in the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, Acts 11:21; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 26:18.

11. All men, since the Fall, are dead in sins, Eph. 2:1-3, and inclined only to evil, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 8:7. For this reason, and particularly because men regard the Gospel of Christ, crucified for the sins of the world, as foolishness, 1 Cor. 2:14, faith in the Gospel, or conversion to God, is neither wholly nor in the least part the work of man, but the work of God's grace and almighty power alone, Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8; 1:19; -- Jer. 31:18. Hence Scripture call the faith of men, or his conversion, a raising from the dead, Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12, a being born of God, John 1:12, 13, a new birth by the Gospel, 1 Pet, 1:23-25, a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world, 2 Cor. 4:6.

12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

15. Our refusal to go beyond what is revealed in these two Scriptural truths is not "masked Calvinism" ("Crypto- Calvinism") but precisely the Scriptural teaching of the Lutheran Church as it is presented in detail in the Formula of Concord (Triglot, p. 1081, paragraphs 57-59, 60b, 62, 63; M. p. 716f.): "That one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again, etc. -- in these and similar questions Paul fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God's judgment. For they are well-deserved penalties of sins when God so punished a land or nation for despising His Word that the punishment extends also to their posterity, as is to be seen in the Jews. And thereby God in some lands and persons exhibits His severity to those that are His in order to indicate what we all would have well deserved and would be worthy and worth, since we act wickedly in opposition to God's Word and often grieve the Holy Ghost sorely; in order that we may live in the fear of God and acknowledge and praise God's goodness, to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit in and with us, to whom He gives His Word and with whom He leaves it and whom He does not harden and reject...And this His righteous, well-deserved judgment He displays in some countries, nations and persons in order that, when we are placed alongside of them and compared with them (quam simillimi illis deprehensi, i.e., and found to be most similar to them), we may learn the more diligently to recognize and praise God's pure, unmerited grace in the vessels of mercy...When we proceed thus far in this article, we remain on the right way, as it is written, Hos. 13:9: `O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we should with Paul place the finger upon our lips and remember and say, Rom. 9:20: `O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" The Formula of Concord describes the mystery which confronts us here not as a mystery in man's heart (a "psychological" mystery), but teaches that, when we try to understand why "one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again," we enter the domain of the unsearchable judgments of God and ways past finding out, which are not revealed to us in His Word, but which we shall know in eternal life. 1 Cor. 13:12.

16. Calvinists solve this mystery, which God has not revealed in His Word, by denying the universality of grace; synergists, by denying that salvation is by grace alone. Both solutions are utterly vicious, since they contradict Scripture and since every poor sinner stands in need of, and must cling to, both the unrestricted universal grace and the unrestricted "by grace alone," lest he despair and perish.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569 (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569)



Also Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1521 so he prayed to Mary while he was a protestant.

So? As I quoted above, he later came to believe that it was wrong to do so.

[Phoebe]

I still have alot of reading to do. ;)

As far as the original post is concerned, a difference in the Sacrament of the Altar is that both elements are distributed to the laity of the church.

[Flipper]

Lutherans believe in predestination?

[theseed]

your birthday is the same day as mine :) what college did you go to?
Carson-Newman Collge in Jefferson City, TN

[JVAC]

Lutherans believe in predestination?
The beauty of the Lutheran Church is it doesn't get in your face. The Lutheran Church doesn't have an official, this is how you must believe, stance on predestination.

Luther did hold firm to a form thereof, however, it does predate calvinism and it is not near calvinism for a couple reasons.

Humans are inherently evil and thus they are bound/predestined to evil
Yet a person can make a decission to follow Christ
Thereupon does the Holy Spirit activate inside the Christian and let the Christian abound in Good Works.
This is the Lutheranian view of "Bondage of the Will". Now the people of the Church may differ on how much "free will" we have and how much we don't have.

For more on this subject please pick up: "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther, Illustrated by Dr. Seuss Analagous readings: "Freedom of the Christian Man", "Book of Concord"

-James

[JVAC]

Here is some more of Luther quote regarding scripture.
In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)This refference comes from the first edition of Martin Luther's preface to the New Testament. Now mind you first of all that it was ONLY in the first edition, meaning that Luther decided to take it out, and secondly that there is no such thing as the "Innerrant Luther".

Now it is important to grasp why he said these things... If I were ever compelled to make a choice, and had to dispense with either the works or the preaching of Christ, I would rather do without the works than the preaching; for the works are of no avail to me, whereas His words give life, as He himself declared.

Martin Luther, Preface to the New Testament (first edition only) Luther wanted it to be stressed, further that we aren't to get caught up in the works more than the Word of God, the message of Salvation. For this purpose there are certain books that expound this principle better than others. This was his way of educating the masses, for they weren't to well learned. This would avoid mass confusion.

Hopefully this explained it somewhat well,

-James

[orthedoxy]

A couple things.
1.) Quoting one sentence from Luther most likely completely takes it out of the context and changes the meaning of the sentence.
2.) If you have read any of Luther's works, you will see that he often writes in such a way to make points.
3.) No one denys that he did make some anti-semetic statements.

here is a jewish site that quotes Luthers work

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

It seems whatever i quote you try to make an excuse for Luther.
Are you saying it was ok for Germans at that time to treat jews like that?


Later in his life Luther changed his mind on the subject. I'm on my way out, but I'll find the quote later.

I'm really intrested to see your quote.


Lutherans believe in predestination and freewill. We are much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism.
[quote]
Quote:7. GOD'S ELECTION OF GRACE

We confess that those in this life who, through the Gospel, have been called, enlightened,
sanctified, and preserved in the true faith, have from eternity been elected according to
God's unmerited love to this adoption as His children, and have been chosen in Christ
"before the creation of the world" to be heirs of everlasting life. Therefore Christians can
and should be sure of their salvation, since God's promise is steadfast and His gracious
election to salvation stands firm. We reject the teaching that there is an eternal election to
damnation (double predestination) and that the offer of salvation which God makes
through the Gospel is not earnestly intended for all people. In faith we accept the teaching
of Scripture that those who are saved are saved by the grace of God alone, and that those
who are lost are lost because of their own unbelief and hardness of heart. See Rom. 8:26-
39, Eph. 1:3-6, 2 Thes. 2:13-14, 1 Tim. 1:15, 2 Tim. 1:12, Ezek. 33:11, Hos. 13:9.
http://www.evluthsyn.org/ (http://www.evluthsyn.org/)

Quote:10. We teach that conversion consists in this, that a man, having learned from the Law of God that he is a lost and condemned sinner, is brought to faith in the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, Acts 11:21; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 26:18.

11. All men, since the Fall, are dead in sins, Eph. 2:1-3, and inclined only to evil, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 8:7. For this reason, and particularly because men regard the Gospel of Christ, crucified for the sins of the world, as foolishness, 1 Cor. 2:14, faith in the Gospel, or conversion to God, is neither wholly nor in the least part the work of man, but the work of God's grace and almighty power alone, Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8; 1:19; -- Jer. 31:18. Hence Scripture call the faith of men, or his conversion, a raising from the dead, Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12, a being born of God, John 1:12, 13, a new birth by the Gospel, 1 Pet, 1:23-25, a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world, 2 Cor. 4:6.

12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

15. Our refusal to go beyond what is revealed in these two Scriptural truths is not "masked Calvinism" ("Crypto- Calvinism") but precisely the Scriptural teaching of the Lutheran Church as it is presented in detail in the Formula of Concord (Triglot, p. 1081, paragraphs 57-59, 60b, 62, 63; M. p. 716f.): "That one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again, etc. -- in these and similar questions Paul fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God's judgment. For they are well-deserved penalties of sins when God so punished a land or nation for despising His Word that the punishment extends also to their posterity, as is to be seen in the Jews. And thereby God in some lands and persons exhibits His severity to those that are His in order to indicate what we all would have well deserved and would be worthy and worth, since we act wickedly in opposition to God's Word and often grieve the Holy Ghost sorely; in order that we may live in the fear of God and acknowledge and praise God's goodness, to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit in and with us, to whom He gives His Word and with whom He leaves it and whom He does not harden and reject...And this His righteous, well-deserved judgment He displays in some countries, nations and persons in order that, when we are placed alongside of them and compared with them (quam simillimi illis deprehensi, i.e., and found to be most similar to them), we may learn the more diligently to recognize and praise God's pure, unmerited grace in the vessels of mercy...When we proceed thus far in this article, we remain on the right way, as it is written, Hos. 13:9: `O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.' However, as regards these things in this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we should with Paul place the finger upon our lips and remember and say, Rom. 9:20: `O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'" The Formula of Concord describes the mystery which confronts us here not as a mystery in man's heart (a "psychological" mystery), but teaches that, when we try to understand why "one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again," we enter the domain of the unsearchable judgments of God and ways past finding out, which are not revealed to us in His Word, but which we shall know in eternal life. 1 Cor. 13:12.

16. Calvinists solve this mystery, which God has not revealed in His Word, by denying the universality of grace; synergists, by denying that salvation is by grace alone. Both solutions are utterly vicious, since they contradict Scripture and since every poor sinner stands in need of, and must cling to, both the unrestricted universal grace and the unrestricted "by grace alone," lest he despair and perish.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569 (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=569)


can you show me from any of Luthers work that he never believed in double predestination?
I see point 12 contradicting point 13 if we are free to resist Gods grace then to remain in Christ is synergism.
If God only saves some and he saves unconditionaly wouldn't this be the same as limited atonement since he didn't plan on saving all?

So? As I quoted above, he later came to believe that it was wrong to do so.
Can you tell me who told you Luther changed his mind about praying to Mary?

[Lotar]

here is a jewish site that quotes Luthers work

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

It seems whatever i quote you try to make an excuse for Luther.
Are you saying it was ok for Germans at that time to treat jews like that?
Was it okay? No it wasn't, and I never said it was. I am defending him because his actions were a product of the time. During his time he was critisized for being too nice to the Jews, now people critisize him for being anti-semetic. This is constantly brought up, like it proves that Luther was an evil man. He was just a man, and capable of sin, just like the rest of us.
BTW, it was more than the just the Germans, it was everybody.

Have you ever read Jews and their Lies? I have, and it's not nearly so offensive when you read it in context. I'm sure that most people would still find it offensive, though I'm sure most wouldn't if the word Jew was replaced with Muslim.

Have you read his many works advocating allowing Jews to trade freely, and to give them other rights?


I'm really intrested to see your quote.

I'm searching for it online. I read it in a book, but my father is borrowing it at the moment.


can you show me from any of Luthers work that he never believed in double predestination?

Correction, can you show me that he did?



I see point 12 contradicting point 13 if we are free to resist Gods grace then to remain in Christ is synergism.
If God only saves some and he saves unconditionaly wouldn't this be the same as limited atonement since he didn't plan on saving all?

It's not exactly an easy to understand doctrine. Whoever is saved is saved solely by the work of God, and whoever is lost is lost because of the hardness of their own hearts. God wishes for everyone to be saved. If it seems contradictory, it is because of our inability to fully understand God.


Can you tell me who told you Luther changed his mind about praying to Mary?

You have a notorious habit of not reading posts. I've quoted both Luther and the Augsburg Confessions, what else do you want?

[ByzantineDixie]

It's not exactly an easy to understand doctrine. Whoever is saved is saved solely by the work of God, and whoever is lost is lost because of the hardness of their own hearts. God wishes for everyone to be saved. If it seems contradictory, it is because of our inability to fully understand God.



Lotar puts it well. Luther made it a point to teach that predestination was to be a comfort for believers and nothing more than that. In other words as believers we could be assured that we were predestined to salvation but we are never to presume that this means there are "others" among us who are predestined to damnation. One should not be the logical extention of the other.

Luther was great with what I term "one-sided coin" explanations. For example...we can reject the grace of the Holy Spirit but there is no "other side of the coin" or logical extension that we can "accept" that grace. Our only action can be one of rejection. As humans we tend to look for "balanced equations"...if we can reject, then surely we can "accept" but that is not necessarily how things work with God. He has no law of equal and opposite reactions. If he did...we'd all be lost.

This understanding or freedom from automatically catering to human logical extensions was one of the single most influencial aspects in my appreciation of Luther. Ya...I wasn't always a Luther fan...until I started studying the doctrine.

Rose

[SpiritPsalmist]

*MOD HAT ON*

THIS IS THE P/R/E FORUM. THERE IS TO BE NO DEBATING BY ANYONE WHO IS NOT PROTESTANT, REFORMED, or EVANGELICAL. . .PERIOD!!!!!!

[Phoebe]

Bumping for tigersnare.