*For quite some time now, I have heard and read from many people of Lutheran Synods, particularly the LCMS and WELS, that members of my synod (ELCA), and the Synod itself, are not confessional. Sometimes, I wonder if this is a good thing. Other times, I wonder if there is simply different interpretations of the Confessions. So, I went and looked up the Augsburg Confession and read through the sections dealing with where the main differences tend to lie. As it turns out, on the subject of who can be ordained (men only or women as well), I think it's an interpretational thing. On who is condemned on the basis of how one views the Lord's Supper, perhaps we are non-confessional. But is that an altogether bad thing? Are the confessions inerrant Scripture that must be adhered to in order to be a Christian, let alone a Lutheran? Or is there room for realizing that the people who wrote this Confession were not perfect while doing so, and that however true their expression of faith may be, there is room for error as well? I confess that I don't think Luther was perfect, and I don't think the interpretation of the Lord's Supper was done perfectly in the past. Just because it was done more than 5 years ago and has stuck doesn't mean it was right and continues to be right.
In essence, the confessions state that "our churches" hold that in the Eucharist the entirety of Christ is present in both forms (the bread and wine both contain fully Christ, body and blood, not just one or the other). With this, I agree, for when Jesus said "This is my body... is my blood..." I do think He was being more than merely metaphorical. However, the confession also states that "our churches" (which means the churches in existence at the time of the confession's writings, obviously it cannot refer to the LCMS or WELS or ELCA as we know them today) reject those who teach otherwise.
With this, I must disagree somewhat. Now, I know what some of you might say, concerning Paul's warning about eating and drinking unworthily which heaps condemnation upon oneself. I agree that it is possible to do just that, of course. I do not agree with the so-called confessional interpretation of what "unworthily" means. I do not believe Paul was referring to a complete and good understanding of the doctrine of Real Presence. This is evident, I believe, in 1 Cor 11:20-22. In those days, the Eucharist was done as a full meal, not just a wafer or piece of bread and a sip of wine or grape juice. For many, it was the only good meal they received all week. Paul's exhortation is to those who arrive before others, eat and drink it all up, and leave others with nothing, that they starve both physically and spiritually. No doubt some of them were "sick and have died". If I ate more than my share of a meal and drank more than my share of the wine, becoming overindulgent in both and being drunk regularly, my liver would probably rebel in a way that would lead me to not be alive much longer.
Having said that, I believe it is right to reject the teaching of doctrines which teach other symbolism-only or trans-substantiation. Furthermore, when the time of communion arrives in a service, no one should be compelled to take communion who holds a different view of the Sacrament. This is not to be understood as forcibly withholding the Sacrament, however. If any wishes to come forward and receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they are welcome, for it is said in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession:
Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us 5] for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.
What does this mean? I believe it means that, on one hand, faith is required to take the Sacrament, yet on the other, the Sacrament gives faith, even on the level of conceiving faith (which is an initial point of receiving faith). If one approaches the altar to take the Eucharist, that is a sign of faith at least strong enough to come forward. No one who is lost and beyond the reach or care of grace will come forward.
Interestingly, although the Confessions decree Absolution (Repentance) to be a Sacrament, officially the Lutheran Churches have only two Sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Absolution is regarded as sacramental (a way in which God gives us forgiving grace), but not a Sacrament (visible word which is a means of God's Grace as well as a symbol of that Grace). Absolution has no physical element such as bread, wine, or water, so it is understandable that it is treated as sacramental yet not a Sacrament. Still, the Confessions say otherwise, point-blank. For all the talk of some about the ELCA being non-confessional, I think a case can be made, and perhaps should be made, that any Lutheran Church which does not officially list Absolution (or Repentance) as a Sacrament, is being non-confessional. That is, of course, if we must adhere to 100% of the literal words of the Confessions or else be condemned as non-Lutheran (which I do not think need be the case).
I will post more confessions in the future pertaining to other subjects of the faith.
In essence, the confessions state that "our churches" hold that in the Eucharist the entirety of Christ is present in both forms (the bread and wine both contain fully Christ, body and blood, not just one or the other). With this, I agree, for when Jesus said "This is my body... is my blood..." I do think He was being more than merely metaphorical. However, the confession also states that "our churches" (which means the churches in existence at the time of the confession's writings, obviously it cannot refer to the LCMS or WELS or ELCA as we know them today) reject those who teach otherwise.
With this, I must disagree somewhat. Now, I know what some of you might say, concerning Paul's warning about eating and drinking unworthily which heaps condemnation upon oneself. I agree that it is possible to do just that, of course. I do not agree with the so-called confessional interpretation of what "unworthily" means. I do not believe Paul was referring to a complete and good understanding of the doctrine of Real Presence. This is evident, I believe, in 1 Cor 11:20-22. In those days, the Eucharist was done as a full meal, not just a wafer or piece of bread and a sip of wine or grape juice. For many, it was the only good meal they received all week. Paul's exhortation is to those who arrive before others, eat and drink it all up, and leave others with nothing, that they starve both physically and spiritually. No doubt some of them were "sick and have died". If I ate more than my share of a meal and drank more than my share of the wine, becoming overindulgent in both and being drunk regularly, my liver would probably rebel in a way that would lead me to not be alive much longer.
Having said that, I believe it is right to reject the teaching of doctrines which teach other symbolism-only or trans-substantiation. Furthermore, when the time of communion arrives in a service, no one should be compelled to take communion who holds a different view of the Sacrament. This is not to be understood as forcibly withholding the Sacrament, however. If any wishes to come forward and receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they are welcome, for it is said in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession:
Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us 5] for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.
What does this mean? I believe it means that, on one hand, faith is required to take the Sacrament, yet on the other, the Sacrament gives faith, even on the level of conceiving faith (which is an initial point of receiving faith). If one approaches the altar to take the Eucharist, that is a sign of faith at least strong enough to come forward. No one who is lost and beyond the reach or care of grace will come forward.
Interestingly, although the Confessions decree Absolution (Repentance) to be a Sacrament, officially the Lutheran Churches have only two Sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Absolution is regarded as sacramental (a way in which God gives us forgiving grace), but not a Sacrament (visible word which is a means of God's Grace as well as a symbol of that Grace). Absolution has no physical element such as bread, wine, or water, so it is understandable that it is treated as sacramental yet not a Sacrament. Still, the Confessions say otherwise, point-blank. For all the talk of some about the ELCA being non-confessional, I think a case can be made, and perhaps should be made, that any Lutheran Church which does not officially list Absolution (or Repentance) as a Sacrament, is being non-confessional. That is, of course, if we must adhere to 100% of the literal words of the Confessions or else be condemned as non-Lutheran (which I do not think need be the case).
I will post more confessions in the future pertaining to other subjects of the faith.