Lutheran vs Orthodox: What's Are the Main Differences?

[~Anastasia~]

This question was mentioned to me by a friend, and I thought it would be a good one to explore. I've seen differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I've seen discussions on Lutheranism vs. Catholicism, but I'd be really interested in the differences between the Orthodox and the Lutherans.

I know of a few, but I'm sure there is much more to be learned. I would appreciate input from both sides, as well as anyone knowledgeable about differences between them.

I'm not looking for a debate or argument, just an exploration of differences. Especially in light that I hadn't realized before that Luther approached the Orthodox Church at one point.

Please be kind, everyone. . (Though I've generally seen both my Lutheran friends and my Orthodox ones to both be nearly unfailingly civil and kind.)

Looking forward to your replies.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Great thread!
Subscribing, but will just lurk awhile



.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

subscribing

 

[Cappadocious]

If I recall, Luther himself didn't get to do so, but some of his followers approached the Church of Constantinople.

So, here are some similarities, first:

1. Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
2. The efficacy of baptism.
3. Liturgical worship.
4. A love for St. Augustine.

Some differences:

1. Orthodox have an episcopal structure, which distinguishes between presbyters and bishops. Lutherans do not.
2. Lutherans are monergists, while Orthodox are synergists. But, when talked out, the difference between Orthodox synergism and Lutheran monergism may not be so large.
3. Orthodox aknowledge more sacraments/mysteries than baptism and the eucharist (i.e. chrismation), while Lutherans only accept baptism and the eucharist.
4. Lutherans typically don't physically venerate things. Orthodox do.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If I recall, Luther himself didn't get to do so, but some of his followers approached the Church of Constantinople.

So, here are some similarities, first:

1. Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
2. The efficacy of baptism.
3. Liturgical worship.
4. A love for St. Augustine.

Some differences:

1. Orthodox have an episcopal structure, which distinguishes between presbyters and bishops. Lutherans do not.
2. Lutherans are monergists, while Orthodox are synergists. But, when talked out, the difference between Orthodox synergism and Lutheran monergism may not be so large.
3. Orthodox aknowledge more sacraments/mysteries than baptism and the eucharist (i.e. chrismation), while Lutherans only accept baptism and the eucharist.
4. Lutherans typically don't physically venerate things. Orthodox do.

These are the major points I could think of. The only thing I personally could add (and I don't want to be the one saying it, since I am an expert in neither) is that they seem to view inner spirituality in virtually opposite ways.

The Orthodox appear to have a large number of monastics within the Church, while as far as I can tell, Lutherans have a great deal of caution with the things the Orthodox would embrace. (Though I am aware that Orthodox teaching does NOT encourage the uninitiated to pursue these methods, particularly not without oversight.).

I guess the other main difference that comes to mind is the way in which the basic view of mankind is considered. It seems to me that Lutherans view mankind as - if not totally depraved, or do they? - possessing nothing within themselves even capable of seeking God on their own. While Orthodox speak of man retaining the image of God in which they were created, albeit one disfigured by the impact of sin.

That leads me to my question regarding your post. You mentioned that the synergism/monergism were possibly not so far apart? I had wondered that once before, but given the ways in with the two consider man himself to differ, is that really possible? Maybe I take it further than it is meant to be taken, or misunderstand one or both of the church's teachings?

I would be most interested in this.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I think total depravity is a hallmark of Calvinism, not so much Lutheranism. In fact, it's the "T" in T.U.L.I.P.

I've heard it said that if Luther had been aware of the Christian East, he probably would have sought out Constantinople. Makes you wonder what the landscape would look like today, had he done that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think total depravity is a hallmark of Calvinism, not so much Lutheranism. In fact, it's the "T" in T.U.L.I.P.

I've heard it said that if Luther had been aware of the Christian East, he probably would have sought out Constantinople. Makes you wonder what the landscape would look like today, had he done that.

I'm not quite sure what to call it in Lutheranism, and I apologize if I've mischaracterized the teachings. That's very possible, of course.

But there certainly does seem to be a sense of nothing good being within man, and that God Himself must act to save mankind. That much is a Lutheran teaching, is it not? Because man is unable to even turn toward God on his own?

I may be confusing myself now, which was why I wanted to just watch. I certainly don't want to muddy the water or mischaracterize any church's doctrine.

But it just seems to me that there is a rather large gulf in the way Lutherans and Orthodox view mankind.

I'd appreciate hearing from someone who knows what they're talking about, instead of me just trying to fill in the blanks. My apologies if I've offended anyone.

 

[Cappadocious]

That leads me to my question regarding your post. You mentioned that the synergism/monergism were possibly not so far apart? I had wondered that once before, but given the ways in with the two consider man himself to differ, is that really possible? Maybe I take it further than it is meant to be taken, or misunderstand one or both of the church's teachings?

The way I understand Orthodox synergism (with respect to the will) is the following: Christ redeemed human nature, so that God's grace provides humans with the ability to choose him or not. Humans can then freely choose God, or not.

I think Lutherans would want to deny that God's grace forces humans to choose him. So, whatever their model, human choice is still a relevant factor.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think total depravity is a hallmark of Calvinism, not so much Lutheranism. In fact, it's the "T" in T.U.L.I.P.

I've heard it said that if Luther had been aware of the Christian East, he probably would have sought out Constantinople. Makes you wonder what the landscape would look like today, had he done that.

I'm not quite sure what to call it in Lutheranism, and I apologize if I've mischaracterized the teachings. That's very possible, of course.

But there certainly does seem to be a sense of nothing good being within man, and that God Himself must act to save mankind. That much is a Lutheran teaching, is it not? Because man is unable to even turn toward God on his own?

I may be confusing myself now, which was why I wanted to just watch. I certainly don't want to muddy the water or mischaracterize any church's doctrine.

But it just seems to me that there is a rather large gulf in the way Lutherans and Orthodox view mankind.

I'd appreciate hearing from someone who knows what they're talking about, instead of me just trying to fill in the blanks. My apologies if I've offended anyone.

Total Depravity is fine. It's one of the few things Lutherans and Calvinists really agree about.

Consider Luther in his Small Catechism,

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true."

That in the bold describes total inability, or total depravity if we prefer. We are totally unable by our own reason or strength to come to God, to believe in Jesus; this is because we are totally depraved, that is, we are in the totality of our human nature sinful, broken, bent. That's actually what depravity means, distorted, broken, disfigured. Even our will, even our best efforts, even our best attempts are stained and marred by the reality of sin. We are entirely sinful, broken, bent, distorted, bent and turned inward toward ourselves and away from God.

Which is why we need an external, outside actor, to act upon us; for Someone to speak to us, like He spoke to Lazarus, and command us up out from the dead. The Gospel being preached is the Voice of Christ calling the dead to life, commanding dead bones to stand up again, and He does this all, as grace, through faith, by Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The way I understand Orthodox synergism (with respect to the will) is the following: Christ redeemed human nature, so that God's grace provides humans with the ability to choose him or not. Humans can then freely choose God, or not.

I think Lutherans would want to deny that God's grace forces humans to choose him. So, whatever their model, human choice is still a relevant factor.

A Lutheran response might be that until the Great Physician operates on us, our will remains damaged goods, held in bondage. The will is not free until the Son of God sets it free.

What in Arminian circles has typically been called "prevenient grace"--a grace that comes to man to free him to free in him the ability to utilize his will to choose God and salvation--isn't recognized in Lutheranism. Perhaps because in Lutheranism grace isn't a "thing", but rather God's disposition. God turned toward man, in Christ, to come and save man--that's grace. God condescending to take hold of man in Christ, which He does through the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments, is God's active, gracious working to come to man and rescue him.

To speak of a sort of prevenient grace doesn't really make sense in Lutheranism, since God's universal grace is realized and manifest in and through the Crucified and Risen Jesus, working through the Means He has established. When the Gospel is preached, that is the gracious God coming and saving you; when the Sacraments are administered, that is the gracious God coming and saving you. God's universal grace is Himself acting toward us, to save us. Thus from a Lutheran POV, a prevenient grace can only be a grace apart from Christ, which we cannot accept. All grace is grace in and on account of Christ, as it is only in and by and through Christ that God graciously dispossesses Himself to us and for us. This He has done once and for all by sending His Son, crucified and risen and ascended and coming again.

The Incarnation is the locus of all redemptive, salvific, gracious, compassionate activity. For all creation. And it is that which takes hold of us, as individuals, when the Gospel Word comes to us, spoken and visible; Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cerette]

Interesting thread!

Just to add some words to the ongoing discussion, I'd say that the unbeliever is spiritually dead. A dead person has no ability to make himself alive.

 

[NorrinRadd]

From a Mennonite-turned-Orthodox friend at CARM, as best I recall our conversations:

1) The Orthodox have a generally more "Eastern" view of reality.

2) Roughly speaking, the Orthodox tend to view Lutheranism and all other branches of Protestantism as subsets of Roman Catholicism. In Orthodox thought, the OC was "the" Church, Catholicism split away at the Great Schism, and all the rest of us are branches of that split-off tree.

3) The Orthodox may have an even greater affinity for "smells and bells" than Catholics. They believe worship should be a "holistic" experience that involves all the senses.

4) The Orthodox have an even larger "Bible" than Catholics. Lutherans recognize the standard Protestant 66 books. (They may, like Anglicans, hold the "Apocrypha" in high esteem, but not to the level of "inspired Scripture." I'm not sure.) Catholics recognize 72 books, IIRC. Orthodox recognize 84, again IIRC. But they also have a different view of "canon." For Lutherans and other Protestants, "Sola Scriptura" means only Scripture is inspired and infallible and of ultimate authority; all other authorities are judged in light of Scripture. For Orthodox, Scripture is only one part of, I believe it's called "Sacred Tradition"; it is not the measuring stick (the literal meaning of "canon") in the same way it is for Protestants.


Regarding the soteriologies of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Lutheranism, see this PDF about TULIP, SCURF, and TUURF, respectively.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The way I understand Orthodox synergism (with respect to the will) is the following: Christ redeemed human nature, so that God's grace provides humans with the ability to choose him or not. Humans can then freely choose God, or not.

I think Lutherans would want to deny that God's grace forces humans to choose him. So, whatever their model, human choice is still a relevant factor.

So ... may I ask? This was not possible before the Crucifixion? (Or the Resurrection - not sure at which point exactly Orthodox theology would say that happened?)

So does that mean that human nature itself changed with the work of Christ?

Not sure if I am understanding correctly, but that is interesting. I had heard some mixed teaching regarding free will among Orthodox, and hadn't gotten back around to asking about that yet.

 

[~Anastasia~]

A Lutheran response might be that until the Great Physician operates on us, our will remains damaged goods, held in bondage. The will is not free until the Son of God sets it free.

What in Arminian circles has typically been called "prevenient grace"--a grace that comes to man to free him to free in him the ability to utilize his will to choose God and salvation--isn't recognized in Lutheranism. Perhaps because in Lutheranism grace isn't a "thing", but rather God's disposition. God turned toward man, in Christ, to come and save man--that's grace. God condescending to take hold of man in Christ, which He does through the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments, is God's active, gracious working to come to man and rescue him.

To speak of a sort of prevenient grace doesn't really make sense in Lutheranism, since God's universal grace is realized and manifest in and through the Crucified and Risen Jesus, working through the Means He has established. When the Gospel is preached, that is the gracious God coming and saving you; when the Sacraments are administered, that is the gracious God coming and saving you. God's universal grace is Himself acting toward us, to save us. Thus from a Lutheran POV, a prevenient grace can only be a grace apart from Christ, which we cannot accept. All grace is grace in and on account of Christ, as it is only in and by and through Christ that God graciously dispossesses Himself to us and for us. This He has done once and for all by sending His Son, crucified and risen and ascended and coming again.

The Incarnation is the locus of all redemptive, salvific, gracious, compassionate activity. For all creation. And it is that which takes hold of us, as individuals, when the Gospel Word comes to us, spoken and visible; Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

In light of what Cappadocious said about grace coming from Christ having redeemed mankind ...

I'd be interested in an Orthodox perspective on what you just said here.

I don't think either side is claiming grace apart from Christ then (although I could be misunderstanding) but perhaps the way in which it comes is different?

 

[MKJ]

So does that mean that human nature itself changed with the work of Christ?

I think it would be healed, or was repaired, rather than changed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

From a Mennonite-turned-Orthodox friend at CARM, as best I recall our conversations:

1) The Orthodox have a generally more "Eastern" view of reality.

2) Roughly speaking, the Orthodox tend to view Lutheranism and all other branches of Protestantism as subsets of Roman Catholicism. In Orthodox thought, the OC was "the" Church, Catholicism split away at the Great Schism, and all the rest of us are branches of that split-off tree.

3) The Orthodox may have an even greater affinity for "smells and bells" than Catholics. They believe worship should be a "holistic" experience that involves all the senses.

4) The Orthodox have an even larger "Bible" than Catholics. Lutherans recognize the standard Protestant 66 books. (They may, like Anglicans, hold the "Apocrypha" in high esteem, but not to the level of "inspired Scripture." I'm not sure.) Catholics recognize 72 books, IIRC. Orthodox recognize 84, again IIRC. But they also have a different view of "canon." For Lutherans and other Protestants, "Sola Scriptura" means only Scripture is inspired and infallible and of ultimate authority; all other authorities are judged in light of Scripture. For Orthodox, Scripture is only one part of, I believe it's called "Sacred Tradition"; it is not the measuring stick (the literal meaning of "canon") in the same way it is for Protestants.


Regarding the soteriologies of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Lutheranism, see this PDF about TULIP, SCURF, and TUURF, respectively.

Thanks, NorrinRadd,

The first Orthodox priest I ever spoke with with a Mennonite-turned-Orthodox, which I found an interesting transition.

I'm still figuring out what all the "Eastern" view of reality means, though it's not as difficult for me as it might have been, as I have somehow been immersed in various Eastern cultures (almost to the exclusion of Western) for the past 12 years. I have more trouble knowing what the difference is, than I do in accepting Eastern ideas in most cases.

Ah, and I will check on those soteriologies when I get a chance, thank you. I had not heard all of those distinctions (though I know what TULIP is, generally at least).

Thanks so much.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it would be healed, or was repaired, rather than changed.

Ah, yes, that fits much better, thank you.

I have been focusing on what the death of Christ meant for death, hades, those who were dead.

But I had not read, heard, or thought about it in terms of the effect on human nature (of the living).

Thank you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Interesting thread!

Just to add some words to the ongoing discussion, I'd say that the unbeliever is spiritually dead. A dead person has no ability to make himself alive.

Hi Cerette! Very good to see you!!!

I think this was part of an analogy considered before when I was trying very hard to understand salvation from a Lutheran point of view.

As well as whether the drowning man was able to grab the life preserver and whether that constituted "saving himself".

Overall, I came away with the STRONG idea that Lutherans teach most emphatically that the work of salvation is entirely God's, in order to give all glory to God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Another thing that I wondered about, from a Lutheran point of view.

I can guess, but I probably ought not do that. The sacraments are limited to two, correct? Baptism and the Eucharist? (And Confession among some Lutherans? Or would it still be sacramental?)

I'd be interested to know about the limiting of the number of sacraments, and what makes something decidedly a sacrament, or not, from the Lutheran perspective?

If I understand Orthodoxy correctly, there are a number of sacraments, and not explicitly defined, as in "we have x number of sacraments, no more, no less." I understand the Orthodox view of sacraments to be slightly more fluid? Offhand I can think of Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Marriage, Confession, Holy Unction, Anointing for healing (is that different from Holy Unction?) ... but the Orthodox Church specifically do not give Last Rites? And I'm forgetting a few others, I'm sure?

Actually, I'd be interested in the definition of "Sacrament" from both points of view as well. (that might be interesting as a general question for all of the churches that believe in sacraments.)

 

[Cappadocious]

So ... may I ask? This was not possible before the Crucifixion? (Or the Resurrection - not sure at which point exactly Orthodox theology would say that happened?)

We speak of "the work of Christ" being all that he accomplished.

Before the work of Christ, humans could not:
1. Escape corruption and death.
2. Be truly righteous (I.E. be truly/fully in communion with God).

That is not to say that nobody ever did what God told them to do, or experienced God; we know that people obeyed God before Christ's earthly works, and had experiences of God; such is mentioned in the Old Testament. But they were unable to overcome the crippling damage done to human existence.

So does that mean that human nature itself changed with the work of Christ?

The way that human nature existed changed with the work of Christ.

If I understand Orthodoxy correctly, there are a number of sacraments, and not explicitly defined, as in "we have x number of sacraments, no more, no less." I understand the Orthodox view of sacraments to be slightly more fluid? Offhand I can think of Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Marriage, Confession, Holy Unction, Anointing for healing (is that different from Holy Unction?) ... but the Orthodox Church specifically do not give Last Rites? And I'm forgetting a few others, I'm sure?

Orthodox do give last rites. Anointing is unction, but can be given for multiple purposes.

You forgot holy orders. We can also speak of monastic tonsure, etc.