A bit more about myself

[Logical_Lutheran]

I haven't posted much on this forum but I figured I would give a little bit of a background on myself, more from a theological perspective, so that people understand my stances.

I was born and raised lutheran, baptized before I could even hold my own head up. I even still have my candle. It's been a real struggle for me in terms of coming to grips with my beliefs, because there are so many out there more appealing than lutheranism, at least until you dig deeper.

In the past few years I've come back to the lutheran church full force, after wanting nothing to do with the church for about 2 years because of the schizm and apathy I witnessed. I started studying more about our theological views, starting with the heidelberg disputation which gripped me, especially the 28th thesis. I consider myself gnesio, and I'm unapologetic in my criticisms of certain other denominations.

The calvinistic/reformed doctrine is attack on sight for me, as I loathe it with a passion that rivals my passion for lutheran doctrine. I've seen the damage it's done to the church as a whole. The Southern Baptist Convention (not baptists in general) is another church body I tend to attack quite frequently. I want to also note that it's not the people in those churches I despise, but only the theological stance they adhere to.

Also I don't fall into the trap of theological trump cards. Statements such as "God told me so" or "because scripture clearly states" only serve to aggravate me. I am known for entering into heated conversation only to turn around and go out for a beer afterward like nothing ever happened.

I'll comment on two social issues that seem to be at the forefront here, abortion and homosexuality.

On the issue of abortion I would consider myself more pro-life. I do not believe that all abortion is murder, as it seems to me that scripture indicates the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn child. If the mother's life is at risk then I believe it is appropriate for the her to choose to abort, and any mother than would choose to lay down her life for the unborn child is worthy of sainthood in my opinion. I will NEVER support the choice to abort for reasons of birth control or quality of life. I believe the appropriate starting point on this issue is to always err on the side of life.

On the issue of homosexuality at this time I take a neutral stance, mainly because I've heard convincing arguments on either side. However I will never support a stance that denies a homosexual their rights as a human and christian, with the understanding that all people are created in the image of the living God.

I'll end with this thought:

I recently read a post where someone asked the question "Isn't Christ enough?". My answer gives a little more insight into my way of thinking. Absolutely! Christ is enough, however which Christ is it you are speaking of?

 

[Bryne]

The calvinistic/reformed doctrine is attack on sight for me, as I loathe it with a passion that rivals my passion for lutheran doctrine.

This is me...in fact, I wouldn't consider Lutheranism for a long time because I was taught in my Calvinist high school that Luther taught the same things that Calvin did.

As my views began to change from Arminianism, it was very frustrating because I didn't know there was another option besides Calvinism.

 

[AngCath]

Thank you for being willing to share more about yourself LL. I think that this forum could use more of these kinds of posts so that we can learn about each other.

 

[Franny50]

Thanks You Logical Lutheran for sharing something about yourself.Our views seem somewhat similar.I guess I am sort of in the middle when it comes to homosexuality.I do believe in civil rights,but am not sure on the whole marriage issue.

I love this forum and have been fortunate to meet people with differing perspectives.I am leaning toward the ELCA,and my beliefs are a mix of liberal and moderate.I am also prolife(from cradle to grave)unless the mothers'life is in jeopardy.I have always been catholic but have stayed away from church for so long,because of major disagreements.I find much truth in the Lutheran faith and find I can express my views here without being attacked.I love the idea of open communion especially and the fact that the ELCA has a number of agreements with other protestant churches.I also love what I have read about what the ElCA's work with the poor overseas.I am excited about having found a church where I can fit in!

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

This is me...in fact, I wouldn't consider Lutheranism for a long time because I was taught in my Calvinist high school that Luther taught the same things that Calvin did.

Interesting syntax there, "Luther taught the same things Calvin did". This is one of the reasons I despise calvinism, it is so disingenuous for the most part. John Calvin was about 10 years old when Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses. Luther was close to his death bed when Calvin first started his theological nonsense. It's Calvin who was influenced by Luther, not the other way around, and Calvin wasn't near as studied as Luther. Calvin was a lawyer, not a theologian. Luther was a doctor of theology. If people would just look into things a little deeper they would be surprised at what they see.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Interesting syntax there, "Luther taught the same things Calvin did". This is one of the reasons I despise calvinism, it is so disingenuous for the most part. John Calvin was about 10 years old when Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses. Luther was close to his death bed when Calvin first started his theological nonsense. It's Calvin who was influenced by Luther, not the other way around, and Calvin wasn't near as studied as Luther. Calvin was a lawyer, not a theologian. Luther was a doctor of theology. If people would just look into things a little deeper they would be surprised at what they see.

Having read a lot of Calvin, and seeing how he litterally falls between Luther and Zwingli so much, and given his relationships with both Zwingli's successors, Bucer, and Luther's right hand man (Melanchthon), and the fact that he truly believed he taught in accord with Luther (he claims himself in line with Luther and the AC after Luther's death) it seems to me that Calvin truly believed he could reconcile the Swiss and German reformations.

By the way, Luther was actually trained as a lawyer too. This is what made them both so good at debate and arguments (hence why they are the key figures of the reformation).
If you ask me Calvin was a theologian but not a pastor. He was legalistic and systematic verses Luther who was pastoral and evangelical in this theology. That is, he developed his theology out of his experience as a Christian and work as a pastor, it has much more existential origins than systematic. And rather than build theology around principles of God (such as his sovereignty) Luther developed a biblical theology based on the gospel revelation.

In his early career, Calvin was vehemently opposed by Luther. They never met but did have few correspondences over the years. In his final years Luther was much more kind to Calvin in his words. Which is ironic because usually we talk about the final years being Luther's stubborn, grump years.

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

Having read a lot of Calvin, and seeing how he litterally falls between Luther and Zwingli so much, and given his relationships with both Zwingli's successors, Bucer, and Luther's right hand man (Melanchthon), and the fact that he truly believed he taught in accord with Luther (he claims himself in line with Luther and the AC after Luther's death) it seems to me that Calvin truly believed he could reconcile the Swiss and German reformations.

By the way, Luther was actually trained as a lawyer too. This is what made them both so good at debate and arguments (hence why they are the key figures of the reformation).
If you ask me Calvin was a theologian but not a pastor. He was legalistic and systematic verses Luther who was pastoral and evangelical in this theology. That is, he developed his theology out of his experience as a Christian and work as a pastor, it has much more existential origins than systematic. And rather than build theology around principles of God (such as his sovereignty) Luther developed a biblical theology based on the gospel revelation.

In his early career, Calvin was vehemently opposed by Luther. They never met but did have few correspondences over the years. In his final years Luther was much more kind to Calvin in his words. Which is ironic because usually we talk about the final years being Luther's stubborn, grump years.

I had to step back for a minute to think about how to respond to this post.

If I am correct, and my timeline is far from perfect here, but it was an edict from the rulers at the time to try and unite the warring factions of the reformation that stopped the crypto-calvinists from being exterminated by the lutherans. Calvin wasn't very liked by anyone and he was driven out numerous times. Also I believe that the only reason Calvin would have agreed with the AC is because Melancthon altered it from it's original statement in the eucharist to come more in line with Calvinistic thought.

I find it overwhelming with Calvinists when dealing with them, that they tend to absorb whatever theological stance fits their way of thinking at the moment, and claim it as their own. Also the BoC expressly speaks against doctrines of double predestination or reinventing the mystery of God's foreknowledge and hidden counsel.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I had to step back for a minute to think about how to respond to this post.

If I am correct, and my timeline is far from perfect here, but it was an edict from the rulers at the time to try and unite the warring factions of the reformation that stopped the crypto-calvinists from being exterminated by the lutherans. Calvin wasn't very liked by anyone and he was driven out numerous times. Also I believe that the only reason Calvin would have agreed with the AC is because Melancthon altered it from it's original statement in the eucharist to come more in line with Calvinistic thought.

I find it overwhelming with Calvinists when dealing with them, that they tend to absorb whatever theological stance fits their way of thinking at the moment, and claim it as their own. Also the BoC expressly speaks against doctrines of double predestination or reinventing the mystery of God's foreknowledge and hidden counsel.

I'm not saying Calvinists are Lutherans or Luther would agree with Calvinist theology (especially by its late, full, developments). Calvin was driven out of Geneva once before they begged him to come back.

Yes, I'm certain that Melanchthon's variatta made it a lot easier to subscribe to the AC. And the reasoning for doing so was probably because at the time the Lutherans (or those who subscribed to the AC) were the only ones recognized under the treaty.

But Calvin was clear in some of his debates/rebuttals that he thought he was within Luther's theology and the theology of the AC (he often referred to Melanchthon as his defense).