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

[sculleywr]

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.

Another similarity, and difference, is that some forms of Lutheranism have a sort of tradition, called Confessional Lutheranism. The difference is that it refers back only to the tradition of Lutherans, and not the Tradition of all the Church.

As to number 2, the monergism only really functions like Orthodoxy in practice, but not in doctrine.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Another similarity, and difference, is that some forms of Lutheranism have a sort of tradition, called Confessional Lutheranism. The difference is that it refers back only to the tradition of Lutherans, and not the Tradition of all the Church.

Actually, the Book of Concord contains the three western creeds ("Apostle's," Nicene (+ filioque), and "Athanasian") and makes pretty constant reference to the church fathers, so I wouldn't peg it down as only Lutheran tradition. Some editions also contain an index by Martin Chemnitz (a third generation Lutheran theologian who is one of the fathers of the Formula of Concord, the last of the confessional documents included in the Book of Concord) of writings of the church fathers that attempts to show that we are in stronger continuity with the ancient church than the Reformed or Catholics.

As to number 2, the monergism only really functions like Orthodoxy in practice, but not in doctrine.

Yes, true. Externally, our rites and sacraments are (when done right) are materially the same, but the doctrinal substance behind them is different. I actually think that is quote catholic/Catholic and quite orthodox/Orthodox (and, for what it's worth, quite Anglican), because the practice of the liturgy has always been antecedent to doctrinal reflection upon the rites.

Actually, though, while I do see salvation and justification as the primary difference between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, I don't particularly like spelling it out in terms of monergism and synergism because that tends to paint the Lutheran view in Reformed colors, and our understanding of the Christian life after baptism and the relationship between that life and grace is quite different from both Orthodoxy and the Reformed.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

Not exactly.

Lutherans would want to deny that God's grace forces humans to choose him, as though we start off with libertarian freewill agents whose will is then contradicted through the action of God's sovereign power.

We we particularly deny, in fact, is the latter. We're not libertarian freewill agents. We're dead. When God saves us, he doesn't save a drowning person who grabs onto a rope thrown out by a life raft (Wesley's metaphor); he takes a person who is dead, already drowned, on the floor of the sea, and performs CPR.

Does the person who has CPR performed have their free will violated? Maybe so, if they got there as part of a suicide attempt. But I don't think many people would be particularly angry at a life guard at a pool who revived a suicidal person.

Certainly God's action upon the individual does result in a real change. I believe somewhere above Kylissa said something to the effect that Lutherans believe that justification is purely a legal matter in God's mind and doesn't involve a substantial, real change in the individual. In that case, she's mistaken (although I may have had a hand in leading her to think that). Justification is grounded in the legal declaration of God in God's mind, but once a person is justified, that effects a real change. Among other things, the person comes to believe in God, have faith, be dependent on him, and through those things changes into a loving individual.

So certainly, God's justification of sinners results in a change of mind and a willful desire to choose God as the ultimate Good, True, and Beautiful. What we adamantly deny is that human choice effects or otherwise causes a person to receive grace or justification or any of God's blesses. It is the result of justification.

 

[Albion]

Lutherans have traditions, too, which represent a reformation of roman catholic traditions according to the Lutheran hermeneutic.

No! They rejected Tradition as a competitor to Holy Scripture.

For Protestants, Scripture is the basis for doctrine. So-called Tradition does not create dogma--that's the difference between religious traditions and "Holy Tradition" which is the basis for doctrine in churches like yours.

I can't imagine why this is so difficult to understand that Catholic/Orthodox apologists keep stating it wrongly...or if it's just a case of trying to find something to say against Protestants, whether accurate or not. In your case, I would think it's not the latter, but yet the thing keeps getting posted.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not exactly.

Lutherans would want to deny that God's grace forces humans to choose him, as though we start off with libertarian freewill agents whose will is then contradicted through the action of God's sovereign power.

We we particularly deny, in fact, is the latter. We're not libertarian freewill agents. We're dead. When God saves us, he doesn't save a drowning person who grabs onto a rope thrown out by a life raft (Wesley's metaphor); he takes a person who is dead, already drowned, on the floor of the sea, and performs CPR.

Does the person who has CPR performed have their free will violated? Maybe so, if they got there as part of a suicide attempt. But I don't think many people would be particularly angry at a life guard at a pool who revived a suicidal person.

Ah, well, you can't violate what doesn't exist?

Please don't misunderstand - I don't mean what I'm about to say in any negative way - but there are a couple of points that really boil down to this one in which Lutheranism does some very clever reasoning in order to make the pieces fit the way they do in the end.

I'm not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, but it does require me at least to make several mistakes in reasoning things out in a simple way, and being corrected, to arrive at what you are really saying. I think I am starting to understand.

Certainly God's action upon the individual does result in a real change. I believe somewhere above Kylissa said something to the effect that Lutherans believe that justification is purely a legal matter in God's mind and doesn't involve a substantial, real change in the individual. In that case, she's mistaken (although I may have had a hand in leading her to think that). Justification is grounded in the legal declaration of God in God's mind, but once a person is justified, that effects a real change. Among other things, the person comes to believe in God, have faith, be dependent on him, and through those things changes into a loving individual.

So certainly, God's justification of sinners results in a change of mind and a willful desire to choose God as the ultimate Good, True, and Beautiful. What we adamantly deny is that human choice effects or otherwise causes a person to receive grace or justification or any of God's blesses. It is the result of justification.

Ah thank you. I believe that was a different thread but yes, I was led to ask that question (though I believe by someone else's statement). But yes, it had begun to seem as if man was inactive throughout his life's process of sanctification, and tbh, I have a difficult time accepting that. If taken to that degree, why have human life at all? Of course it's not that simple, and there are still other reasons to continue creation, but it does make it seem relatively meaningless. Not only that, but it makes it seem like a roll of the die determining where one spends eternity and that begins to make me really uncomfortable.

I think this is one of those cases that a simple following of statements can lead to a wrong conclusion re: Lutheranism, so thank you for the correction.

I'm not ready to draw a line for myself and say man definitely does begin to participate in receiving this and not that, or nothing at all, etc. or everything, but you've given me a bit more to think about.

This really leads to another question, but it more properly belongs in another thread (that I have long neglected - I hope you're willing to revisit it with me, and I know the ball was in my court). I'm still keenly interested though.

Thank you again.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No! They rejected Tradition as a competitor to Holy Scripture.

For Protestants, Scripture is the basis for doctrine. So-called Tradition does not create dogma--that's the difference between religious traditions and "Holy Tradition" which is the basis for doctrine in churches like yours.

I can't imagine why this is so difficult to understand that Catholic/Orthodox apologists keep stating it wrongly...or if it's just a case of trying to find something to say against Protestants, whether accurate or not. In your case, I would think it's not the latter, but yet the thing keeps getting posted.

I believe it was myself who brought out this question. And maybe I asked it in a wrong way.

You are saying that Tradition is not sufficient for establishing dogma, which had not entered into my question, but I have heard it over and over of the entire church outside of Orthodoxy/Catholicism. (I'd really like to get into what that dogma is, but not in this thread.) That's an important point, of course.

But what prompted my question was simply the visible traditions in church services, which to my eyes appear to be strongly similar between Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican (the very limited churches I have been in at least). And I suppose some Methodists might be as well, though I have not found one of those - and perhaps others I don't know of.

Really, what it seems to amount to, is liturgical churches. There would seem to me to be little difference in what a person experiences when they enter a church and attend the liturgy, between these churches. Of course there are major theological differences, but that wouldn't necessarily be apparent to a first-time visitor, say.

That was what prompted my question, and you are suggesting something much deeper. Which I am interested in, but as it does not relate only to Lutherans and Orthodox, I'd prefer to begin a separate thread.

Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Oh, one more thing? If it was discussed regarding Lutherans, I've forgotten it, but I don't think it was particularly applied to the theology in any thread I've been in yet.

But Lutherans would not advocate asking intercession of the Saints or the Theotokos (Mother of God) would they? It wouldn't be something even discussed in any church outside of Orthodox and Catholic, would it?

It's not required in Orthodoxy either, but it is an accepted (and encouraged) practice.

And by far the one I've had the most trouble with.

 

[Albion]

I believe it was myself who brought out this question. And maybe I asked it in a wrong way.

You are saying that Tradition is not sufficient for establishing dogma, which had not entered into my question

Well, no, that wasn't what I was saying; but yes, that post was a reply to someone else. I do also recognize that it was drifting a bit from the clean-cut question you posed about Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

But what prompted my question was simply the visible traditions in church services, which to my eyes appear to be strongly similar between Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican (the very limited churches I have been in at least). And I suppose some Methodists might be as well, though I have not found one of those - and perhaps others I don't know of.

Right. Here you are speaking of real traditions, not the selective dogmatizing on what some Early Church Father or some legend left as a legacy.

These are all liturgical churches, to be sure, so of course they have that in common. Other than for the basics that almost all Christians accept, however, that's about as far as the similarity goes.

Really, what it seems to amount to, is liturgical churches.

That's how it seems from here, yes.

There would seem to me to be little difference in what a person experiences when they enter a church and attend the liturgy, between these churches. Of course there are major theological differences, but that wouldn't necessarily be apparent to a first-time visitor, say.

Agreed.

 

[Albion]

Oh, one more thing? If it was discussed regarding Lutherans, I've forgotten it, but I don't think it was particularly applied to the theology in any thread I've been in yet.

But Lutherans would not advocate asking intercession of the Saints or the Theotokos (Mother of God) would they? It wouldn't be something even discussed in any church outside of Orthodox and Catholic, would it?

.

Oh, you could add in Old Catholics and "Anglo-Catholics," but you are essentially right about that.

Lutherans do use images, name their churches after Saints (particularly the Apostles and Four Evangelists), commemorate the feast days of some saints on the church calendar, and etc., but they draw the line at intercessions and the kind of devotions directed at the Saints that Catholics and Orthodox Christians take for granted as right to do.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Oh, you could add in Old Catholics and "Anglo-Catholics," but you are essentially right about that.

Ah, I don't know yet really what Old Catholics are (I admit I've puzzled about the distinctions between Catholics in the faith community forums here). And Anglo-Catholics ... it seems the Anglican community in general seems to say different things about itself depending on who you ask, and most especially you hear different things if you listen to people who are not Anglican, speaking of various Anglican Churches.

(I know you said Anglo-Catholics, and I may not be making proper distinctions here, but I didn't get very far into Anglican churches of various kinds yet.)

When I posted the initial statement, I wondered where Anglicans would fall, or more particularly, where which Anglicans would fall within that statement.

 

[Albion]

Ah, I don't know yet really what Old Catholics are (I admit I've puzzled about the distinctions between Catholics in the faith community forums here). And Anglo-Catholics ... it seems the Anglican community in general seems to say different things about itself depending on who you ask, and most especially you hear different things if you listen to people who are not Anglican, speaking of various Anglican Churches.

(I know you said Anglo-Catholics, and I may not be making proper distinctions here, but I didn't get very far into Anglican churches of various kinds yet.)

When I posted the initial statement, I wondered where Anglicans would fall, or more particularly, where which Anglicans would fall within that statement.

What I said was just a technical point. You said you didn't know anyone other than the RC and EO who ask for the intercession of the saints and so on. Technically, one could also throw in the Old Catholics, but that would be just a footnote. The Old Catholics are Catholics who left the RC when it declared the Pope infallible (1870) and Anglo-Catholics are not a church in themselves but a faction within Anglicanism that imagines that Anglicanism is a Catholic Church minus Pope, as though the Reformation were only a momentary stumble of no lasting importance to the church. Naturally, these two groups would -- for their own reasons -- be on the same wavelength with the RCC when it comes to this issue.

 

[sculleywr]

Actually, the Book of Concord contains the three western creeds ("Apostle's," Nicene (+ filioque), and "Athanasian") and makes pretty constant reference to the church fathers, so I wouldn't peg it down as only Lutheran tradition. Some editions also contain an index by Martin Chemnitz (a third generation Lutheran theologian who is one of the fathers of the Formula of Concord, the last of the confessional documents included in the Book of Concord) of writings of the church fathers that attempts to show that we are in stronger continuity with the ancient church than the Reformed or Catholics.

Touche, but it is a bit of a spectrum, depending on which Lutheran group your church is part of.

Yes, true. Externally, our rites and sacraments are (when done right) are materially the same, but the doctrinal substance behind them is different. I actually think that is quote catholic/Catholic and quite orthodox/Orthodox (and, for what it's worth, quite Anglican), because the practice of the liturgy has always been antecedent to doctrinal reflection upon the rites.

I like that quote

Actually, though, while I do see salvation and justification as the primary difference between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, I don't particularly like spelling it out in terms of monergism and synergism because that tends to paint the Lutheran view in Reformed colors, and our understanding of the Christian life after baptism and the relationship between that life and grace is quite different from both Orthodoxy and the Reformed.

Unfortunately, there are few Protestant churches, even among the denominations born in the classical reformation, that haven't been effected by the Radical Reformation somehow. There is much different, but there are also some key similarities.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh, one more thing? If it was discussed regarding Lutherans, I've forgotten it, but I don't think it was particularly applied to the theology in any thread I've been in yet.

But Lutherans would not advocate asking intercession of the Saints or the Theotokos (Mother of God) would they? It wouldn't be something even discussed in any church outside of Orthodox and Catholic, would it?

It's not required in Orthodoxy either, but it is an accepted (and encouraged) practice.

And by far the one I've had the most trouble with.

We recognize that God's faithful saints in heaven pray for us on earth, as a dimension of the Communio Sanctorum--the Communion of Saints--but we believe it is inappropriate to petition the saints.

That they do pray for us is generally accepted. That we ought to ask for their prayer is frowned upon and/or rejected.

Thus the ancient form of the Hail Mary, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" is pretty fine, indeed it is taken almost entirely verbatim from Scripture. But during the time of the Reformation the petition, "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." was a recent addition, and was frowned upon by the Reformers.

It's fine--and good--to venerate, respect, and honor God's Saints, and we can even say that there is a special place for the Theotokos, who is indeed blessed among women, mother of God, etc. And to understand that in the fellowship of God's Saints in Christ, the dearly departed pray for us still on earth because the union we have in Christ is unbroken by death.

Where the line is drawn is petition to the saints, or observing the "cultus" of a saint, and especially a saints' relic. Such things we see as, at best, distractions and at worst a layer of stuff covering over, blocking, and obscuring true, real Gospel preaching.

But Christians praying for Christians? Why shouldn't the dearly departed pray for us who remain here on earth? And why shouldn't we pray for the dearly departed? In Christ we have been made alive, even in the face of death, with our hope put forward to life eternal and everlasting, resurrection from the dead, and world without end.

edited to add: I won't say everything I've written above is de facto Lutheran; so much as it's what I understand based largely on what I've read in the Confessions. Others here such as Gratia will, I'm sure, be able to correct me where I may have mis-relayed Lutheran thinking in this area.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sculleywr]

No! They rejected Tradition as a competitor to Holy Scripture.

For Protestants, Scripture is the basis for doctrine. So-called Tradition does not create dogma--that's the difference between religious traditions and "Holy Tradition" which is the basis for doctrine in churches like yours.

I can't imagine why this is so difficult to understand that Catholic/Orthodox apologists keep stating it wrongly...or if it's just a case of trying to find something to say against Protestants, whether accurate or not. In your case, I would think it's not the latter, but yet the thing keeps getting posted.

Albion, the best explanation of the traditions of Lutherans is the teachings of the Lutherans, not the claims of an Anglican. With that in mind, here is the confessional tradition of Lutheranism, as explained by a Lutheran minister:

Lutheran Theology Web Site

 

[Albion]

Albion, the best explanation of the traditions of Lutherans is the teachings of the Lutherans, not the claims of an Anglican.

Well then, the last thing we ought to do is pay any attention to an Eastern Orthodox poster guessing about Lutheranism.

 

[sculleywr]

Well then, the last thing we ought to do is pay any attention to an Eastern Orthodox poster guessing about Lutheranism.

That's why I posted a source on Confessional Lutheranism, Albion, from a Lutheran minister.

You denied the existence of Lutheran tradition, and yet it exists.

Of course, you've also denied that the tradition of your canon stands over your Scriptures, rendering them to not be the highest authority...

 

[MoreCoffee]

I hope I am not intruding and that I am not stating the obvious when I observe that saint Augustine of Hippo said that evil is the corruption of the good and that where there is no good then evil cannot exist (subsist) because there is nothing to corrupt. Thus human nature cannot be completely evil because if it were it would cease to exist altogether. The same is true of human will; it too cannot be completely evil or completely turned away from God because if it were then it would no longer exist.

The above very brief considerations imply that inherited corruption is not the same as spiritual death nor can inherited corruption mean that human will is dead or utterly turned away from God. The corruption of human nature, including human will, is analogous to an infection of the body (flu, the plague, or a common cold) because in an infection the whole body is affected but not every part of the body is infested with the infecting agent and not every cell has been overcome by it.

Grace is like a medicine (for example, like an antibiotic or an antiviral) that fights the progress of the infection and reclaims infected areas by helping the body to recover without the body being overcome. And grace is not tied to a specific time in history but is tied to Jesus Christ in every location and in every age. This is part of the theology that naturally develops from the idea of Theosis (the Beatific Vision) because Theosis means both that the faithful participate in Christ's life through union with him and that the faithful are made healthy in union with Christ. The kind of health I have in mind is firstly the health of the soul that turns to God in faith and reliance upon Jesus Christ as Saviour, friend, and Brother while always recognising him as God.

There is always a hint (and a reality) of eternity in the work of Christ - as an aside, this is why the Holy Eucharist is a 're-presentation' of the sacrifice on Cavalry's hill and a participation in the sacrifice offered by Christ to God and a taste of heaven even though we remain on Earth. So the grace that is in Christ is the selfsame grace that Able and Seth and Noah and Abraham and all the old testament saints received in proportion to the faith that God had revealed to them in their times.

So the will to seek God and the embrace of faith are both a work of grace and a work of the human person as that person is progressively healed from the effects of inherited sin and the effects of actual sins. Inherited sin is the infecting agent that would overcome the human person if it were left untreated and actual sins are the marks of the progress of the infection as it works its way towards the ultimate death of the person who is infected. The only way to halt and reverse the progress of the infection is to receive the medicine (grace) and keep receiving it until the infection is fully cured.

The end result of looking at "original sin" and "actual sins" in this way is to understand that grace is always the cause of healing and that human will is not dead nor is human nature "totally depraved" even though the whole person is infected with sin.

I hope this helps to explain or at least offer a perspective on why Catholic (and I think Orthodox) Christians do not subscribe to the T of TULIP or to "the bondage of the will" that Martin Luther wrote about so forcefully.

 

[Dorothea]

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.

I like how my friend, Thekla put it one time when we talked via the phone, and i think it's more accurate. Christ didn't repair us, but restored us and all creation and reconciled all back to the Father.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I hope I am not intruding and that I am not stating the obvious when I observe that saint Augustine of Hippo said that evil is the corruption of the good and that where there is no good then evil cannot exist (subsist) because there is nothing to corrupt.<snip>

I hope this helps to explain or at least offer a perspective on why Catholic (and I think Orthodox) Christians do not subscribe to the T of TULIP or to "the bondage of the will" that Martin Luther wrote about so forcefully.

You are certainly not intruding at all, MC.

I have heard mixed comments on Augustine from Orthodox - haven't gone back and looked into that. But very much of what you said seems consistent with Orthodox teachings as I understand them so far. In a few cases, perhaps the same words would not be used (and I'd be especially careful regarding the Eucharist to state that) ... but as a general way of looking at mankind and grace, it seems consistent to me.

I actually had not realized that Catholics considered it so, as some have stressed original sin as having more of an effect, and I had thought "total depravity" was a Catholic doctrine, but it seems I was wrong on that. It was something I heard in passing, not investigated.

So many doctrines to understand, and attribute to churches, and see the evolution and effects of ... I just try to keep straight what I "might have heard" and what seems positively established. It is a lot to learn. And again I apologize if I mischaracterize any Church or teaching.

But what you said here makes a lot of sense to me. I have to say that it is on an intuitive level more so than a Scriptural one at this point, but it does make sense.

Scripturally it would be easier for me to "prove" the "T" to myself. But I've never been comfortable with hard-core Calvinism (though I've been in many churches that taught it).

Thanks for your post.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I like how my friend, Thekla put it one time when we talked via the phone, and i think it's more accurate. Christ didn't repair us, but restored us and all creation and reconciled all back to the Father.

Thank you, Dorothea. I always find Thekla's comments to be very helpful.