Confessional Lutheran Converts?

I'll chew on it - but that is pretty good - thank you!

Markie Boy said:

On one hand - that makes sense. On the other it spooks me.

How is this different than the Catholic teaching of confession to the priest and the priest giving absolution?

Click to expand...

One way it's different is that the Lutheran understanding of the special priesthood under the New Testament/Covenant goes back to how the early church understood it. In contrast with the special priesthood under the Old/Mosaic Covenant, the Aaronic/Levitical priest stood in the place of a Savior who had not yet come, and so was an intermediary priesthood, while the in special priesthood under the New Testament the priest stands in the place of a Savior who has come -- and thus, since He is a living Savior, the priest when functioning as priest in the administration of the Sacraments (of which Confession & Absolution is one) is there to do nothing of himself but only to speak the words of Christ. As one ancient theologian put it, the New Testament priest loans his hands and his voice to Jesus to speak again what He spoke once so long ago and to do what Jesus did so long ago.

This, BTW, is the reason that the Lutheran priest/pastor wears (or at least is supposed to wear!) robes: the robes cover him as an individual and remind us that he does nothing of himself, he is a stand-in through whom Christ speaks.

The Roman Catholic church is not clear on this matter; their understanding of the priesthood includes the Old Testament view that the priesthood is intermediary. This is because they have a very hierarchical and institutional view of the office of the ministry, where Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, the Apostles passed it on to their 'students', and those students in turn passed it to others. So while they also say that the priest stands on the place of Christ, they don't mean it just directly with the priest essentially loaning his hands and voice to Jesus, they also mean that the priest has received his authority through that chain down through the ages, and so where the Lutheran priest declares that he acts "in the stand and by the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", the Roman Catholic priest purports to act from power that is his. (This is the result of the Roman Catholic church buying so heavily into Greek, specifically Aristotelian, philosophy, in this case especially as applied to the "Apostolic Succession", which requires that only a bishop who can trace his authority backwards, bishop by bishop into the past, can ordain a priest, and that ordination is not merely the bestowal of the office of the ministry but is the transfer of actual authority to the priest. The real problem there is that the emphasis shifts from the Gospel and the work of the Spirit and requires that unbroken chain for the administration of the Sacraments to be valid. Luther correctly denied this, noting that for the sake of good order Apostolic Succession should be followed, but that wherever the Word of the Lord grows a gathering of believers, the authority to call both pastors/priests and bishops is there.)

A note for clarification: the Lutheran minister both is and is not a priest. He is when he is celebrating the Sacraments because that is where he most directly stands in the place of Jesus, but he is not when he is preaching or teaching; while Luther referred (along with many in the early church) to the sermon as God's word, it is not directly God's word but is also the words of the pastor.

And that's probably more information than you were expecting, so I'll stop now.

Thank you. That sounds slightly better, yet very similar to Catholic teaching.

I think the one thing I have seen at the local LCMS is the pastor saying "I absolve you of your sins". At that - I'm outta there, as it sounds just like the Catholic teaching where the priest himself has this "power".

If the pastor offered the council to the congregation that said "If you have repented, Christ has forgiven you", where it's clearly stated it's Christ, and not the man, I'd be more at ease.

Markie Boy said:

Thank you. That sounds slightly better, yet very similar to Catholic teaching.

I think the one thing I have seen at the local LCMS is the pastor saying "I absolve you of your sins". At that - I'm outta there, as it sounds just like the Catholic teaching where the priest himself has this "power".

If the pastor offered the council to the congregation that said "If you have repented, Christ has forgiven you", where it's clearly stated it's Christ, and not the man, I'd be more at ease.

Click to expand...

Unless that pastor has changed the liturgy, it's very plain that the priest/pastor has no power, just the authority Jesus assigned. That's why it says, "In the stead and by the command of y Lord Jesus Christ" -- he's doing only what Christ authorized and commanded.

Daniel9v9 said:

Yeah, there are arguments for and against this, and both have to do with the conscience of the hearer. That is, for the repentant sinner who ask himself if he's truly forgiven, the pastor wants to remove doubt and to state very clearly that he is objectively forgiven, because the minister, as an ambassador of Christ, forgives him in Jesus name (and not in his own name!). Conditional language can have the opposite effect in that if someone says that "you are forgiven if you repent", then people may ask: "Did I truly repent? Am I forgiven?" So the argument for this declaration is with this in mind — it's to remove doubt and to comfort the repentant sinner who is burdened by sin.

However, the downside of an unconditional statement is that it can be offensive or confusing to those who don't understand it rightly.

In our church body, we opt for a conditional statement. I can appreciate both understandings, but I favour a conditional language and like to say: "Upon your confession, I, by virtue of my office, as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God to all of you who truly repent — who trust only in the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation — I affirm His promise of forgiveness to you in the name of the Father, and of the + Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Although it's conditional, it's my view that this protects the consciences of the hearers the best. That is, while it's conditioned with those who truly repent (which is to say that repentance is not a mechanical thing), I want to make it clear that this is not works-righteousness or a case of meriting God's grace, but a matter of trust in the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So for me, I believe a conditional absolution is appropriate for public Confession and Absolution, because it can be difficult to know where everyone stand, but unconditional is appropriate for private Confession and Absolution, because here there is opportunity to learn more and comfort accordingly.

All in all, though. It's good to be mindful of that either way, the Absolution is a matter of comforting contrite sinners. It's not meant to confuse or to be a burden, but to console the hearer with the joy and peace of Christ.

Blessings!

Click to expand...

This reminds me of what was a very chilling moment when I was living in Indiana and attending a Lutheran church. It was, IIRC, an Ash Wednesday service, and the priest used the standard formula for the absolution, then turned to the altar. He took one step, stopped, and turned back, and declared, "On the other hand, if you have not truly repented of your sins and are not heartily sorry for them, I declare to you that you are not forgiven." He let that sink in before going on with the alternate liturgy, "If, when you are bringing your gift to the altar you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." Then he turned back to the altar and knelt in prayer.

It took a bit for what he had just done/said to sink in, then a few people left where they were and went to some others, then more. I think more offenses were forgiven, grudges abandoned, barriers broken, and more in the next ten or fifteen minutes than in the previous two or three years in that congregation. I also think that's when things there turned around and the quarrels and infighting stopped.

I guess I can keep working on things. I love the Didache - it's the best resource outside scripture we have I think.

When I brought up the Didache to my old Baptist pastor - he had never even heard of it. How one goes thru seminary and never hears of it??? Just seems like an incomplete education.

Markie Boy said:

I guess I can keep working on things. I love the Didache - it's the best resource outside scripture we have I think.

When I brought up the Didache to my old Baptist pastor - he had never even heard of it. How one goes thru seminary and never hears of it??? Just seems like an incomplete education.

Click to expand...

People who haven’t read it are really missing out.

Markie Boy said:

Thank you. That sounds slightly better, yet very similar to Catholic teaching.

I think the one thing I have seen at the local LCMS is the pastor saying "I absolve you of your sins". At that - I'm outta there, as it sounds just like the Catholic teaching where the priest himself has this "power".

If the pastor offered the council to the congregation that said "If you have repented, Christ has forgiven you", where it's clearly stated it's Christ, and not the man, I'd be more at ease.

Click to expand...

Let's be mindful that the reason there was a reformation was not because the Catholic Church was entirely and 100 percent wrong in its teachings; it was that many of those sound Biblical practices had become corrupted by sinful mismanagement and misapplication of the Sacraments. Were the entirety of the Catholic Church rotten to the core, the Lutheran Church would not look anything like it does.

The responsibility and the authority to not only forgive the sins of those who repent (absolution), but to also retain or bind the sins of the impenitent (excommunication) has been inferred upon the Church, and is administered on their behalf by the Pastor (from our liturgies). These things are instituted by Christ, and as such the Church must follow our Lord's instruction. In the Augsburg Confession, Confession and Absolution is called a "Sacrament" because it was instituted by Christ (just like Baptism and the Eucharist) and like Baptism and the Eucharist it does convey the forgiveness of sins. It is only by the strictest "human" definition that a sacrament must contain a physical element combined with God's word that (water, bread, wine) we no longer call it a sacrament. IMO... "if it walks like a duck...".

If you fear or flee from the Absolution, a fair statement as a life long Lutheran and as one who has been an elder for most of my adult life would be "you need to go to confession".

I would also suggest that you need review the Small Catechism, particularly:
Luther’s Small Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther Office of the Keys and Confession

And from the Augsburg Confession:
Article XI. Of Confession.
Article XII. Of Repentance.
Article XIII. Of the Use of the Sacraments.
Article XXV. Of Confession.
Article XXIV. Of the Mass.

God's blessing to you as you grow in your faith.

Question on the Didache - what is the "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice..."?

Catholics would label that the sacrifice of the mass - but is it?

Daniel9v9 said:

Hey, that's a great question! The Didache itself doesn't clarify what it means by the word "sacrifice", so I think instead of reading later Roman Catholic theology into the text, it can be more helpful to understand it in light of what Hebrews teaches regarding sacrifices. Namely, that (1) Christ has offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, and (2) we, through Christ, continually offer up a sacrifice of praise and thanks to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name.

I think what we can take from these verses is that we, as a royal priesthood in Christ, are to confess our sins before coming to His table.

Click to expand...

Markie Boy said:

Question on the Didache - what is the "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice..."?

Catholics would label that the sacrifice of the mass - but is it?

Click to expand...

To build on what Daniel9v9 posted in his second point. We define all things that we do in service of God as "sacrificial acts", and what God does for us as Sacramental acts. The Mass is both; we conduct the liturgy; which is sacrificial; the gifts of grace and forgiveness that come to us in the context of the Mass are sacramental. While the Catholic Church maintains that you can earn merits as a result of the "sacrifice" is not Biblical; however the merits given sacramentally during the reception of the Eucharist from God are very real.

The more I learn about Lutheran teaching, the more it's making sense. It's looking like a unique bridge with historical Christianity, without the "extra stuff" that's really not historical or Biblical. I have determined I am not dispensational, or pre-trib rapture, or once saved always saved.

I have a lot to learn yet, but Lutheranism is making sense as I go. I ran into problems with Catholicism as I learned more about it. And the same with Baptist teaching - it was simpler - but the OSAS thing is not even scriptural, much less historical.

I'll try to keep learning, and probably bring my questions here. Thanks!

JM said:

Just wondering, why did you convert to Lutheranism and from which faith or religion?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Click to expand...

Well, Even though I am American by birth, I was born in Berlin(Germany). All through my formative years, I floundered from one denomination to the next. Also being exposed to the Devil(not my doing) several times( Tarot cards, Edgar Cayce Institute). In 1987 when I was 20, I met my future(now ex)wife. We started dating. In 1989 I joined their ELCA congregation. My (ex)FIL n' his second wife were my representatives at my baptism. In 1997 when my (ex)wife n' I physically separated, I switched to an LCMS congregation. I have been an LCMS member since then.