Confessional Lutheranism True Church

[tampasteve]

I believe I answered that question earlier. see post # 12

You sure did, my apologies

 

[grasping the after wind]

You sure did, my apologies

Accepted but hardly something needing an apology. I doubt anyone reads every word of every post in a thread they participate in.

 

[FireDragon76]

The term Protestant does not refer specifically to protesting the Catholic church's practices, but to German nobility protesting the decision to suspend the Imperial Diet, which was going to vote in favor of the Lutheran and Reformed nobility to enforce their respective religions in their own regions. So it's ultimately political in origin more than religious.

 

[tampasteve]

How can I be assured that confessional Lutheranism is and contains the pure gospel of Christ? How can I be assured that is is Lutherans that echo what Christ intended in the church, and not Orthodox Christians?

In other words, what within Lutheranism challenges the Orthodox's claim that it alone is the one, true church?

How is your search going, have you been able to attend either church's services or speak with a local pastor/priest?

 

[godenver1]

How is your search going, have you been able to attend either church's services or speak with a local pastor/priest?

Thanks for your interest. I plan on attending my first Lutheran service this week. I've been over the liturgy for the Divine Service, and it looks beautiful.

 

[tampasteve]

Thanks for your interest. I plan on attending my first Lutheran service this week. I've been over the liturgy for the Divine Service, and it looks beautiful.

Wonderful! I am interested to see how you like it. If you are familiar with Anglican and/or Catholic Mass it will look very similar to you. I am a big fan of the Lutheran approach to theology, which makes the liturgy mean a lot more, to me anyways. If you have a chance to review the Book of Concord or Large Catechism it would be a good primer for the Lutheran beliefs

 

[Basil the Great]

It is perfectly reasonable to consider both Anglicans and Lutherans to be Protestant. Just because they are closer in many ways in their theology and liturgy to Catholicism than some of the other Protestant denominations doesn't change the fact that their protests against papal authority and what they considered to be incorrect practices in the Roman Church earned them the name Protestant. One may want to disassociate oneself with the beliefs and practices of some members of one's group but one cannot change the fact one belongs in that group. Protestant applies to Lutherans and Anglicans just as it does the many other denominations not affiliated with the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox church in the same way that Christian applies to the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant members of that group.

By any reasonable standard, any faith group that believes that the Bible contains all that is sufficient for salvation and that there are only two sacraments instituted by Jesus, is Protestant. Besides this, the Apostolic churches (RCC, EOC and OOC) all teach that confession to a priest is required for the forgiveness of grave sins (save in very rare circumstances) and they regularly practice praying to saints for intercession and they teach that Mary was sinless, etc. Yes, it is true that Anglicans and Lutherans are probably closer to the Apostolic churches in terms of Holy Communion, but that is effectively the only area in which they are closer to the Apostolic churches than other Protestants. You cannot even count Infant Baptism, as United Methodists and Presbyterians also practice such, as well as some other Protestant bodies.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

By any reasonable standard, any faith group that believes that the Bible contains all that is sufficient for salvation and that there are only two sacraments instituted by Jesus, is Protestant. Besides this, the Apostolic churches (RCC, EOC and OOC) all teach that confession to a priest is required for the forgiveness of grave sins (save in very rare circumstances) and they regularly practice praying to saints for intercession and they teach that Mary was sinless, etc. Yes, it is true that Anglicans and Lutherans are probably closer to the Apostolic churches in terms of Holy Communion, but that is effectively the only area in which they are closer to the Apostolic churches than other Protestants. You cannot even count Infant Baptism, as United Methodists and Presbyterians also practice such, as well as some other Protestant bodies.

Be mindful that Anglicans list 7 sacraments in the Book of Common Prayer. The Augsburg confession numbers three Sacraments; baptism, Eucharist, Confession and Absolution. The other "4" are considered either "sacramentals" or "sacramental acts"; that is "sacred acts". In confessional Lutheranism, ordination, installation of Pastors and Bishops/Presidents consist of a rite based on the Roman Ritual and included the laying on of hands. The anointing of the Sic likewise uses oil and like the Roman Ritual follows the Biblical example, and the traditional format; as does the Mass and the daily office. Etc.

What makes a sacrament a sacrament for a specific Church is their specific definition. The definition of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is broader than that of Lutherans. Likewise, in Lutheranism the efficacy of the sacraments and sacramental acts are not dependent on "Holy Orders" or "Apostolic Succession"; rather their efficacy is from God alone.

With a few exceptions that were mentioned above, in "protestant" Churches, there is no efficacy and despite the promises of Scripture, neither are they considered or believed to be "means of grace".

So, you can use the the view of the sacraments to identify "protestants" but in doing so, it would tend to exclude Lutherans, and certainly "Confessional Lutherans" from being identified as "Protestant".

There is no simple answer by which a line can be truly drawn.

 

[Basil the Great]

I had forgotten that the Book of Common Prayer lists 7 sacraments, though I am not sure that Anglicans still consider all 7 as sacraments. I suppose, Mark, that the key difference between Protestants and the Apostolic Churches, is that Protestants view the Bible to be the determining factor for both rule and practice and certainly that everything necessary to salvation is contained in the Scriptures.

 

[Basil the Great]

Be mindful that Anglicans list 7 sacraments in the Book of Common Prayer. The Augsburg confession numbers three Sacraments; baptism, Eucharist, Confession and Absolution. The other "4" are considered either "sacramentals" or "sacramental acts"; that is "sacred acts". In confessional Lutheranism, ordination, installation of Pastors and Bishops/Presidents consist of a rite based on the Roman Ritual and included the laying on of hands. The anointing of the Sic likewise uses oil and like the Roman Ritual follows the Biblical example, and the traditional format; as does the Mass and the daily office. Etc.

What makes a sacrament a sacrament for a specific Church is their specific definition. The definition of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox is broader than that of Lutherans. Likewise, in Lutheranism the efficacy of the sacraments and sacramental acts are not dependent on "Holy Orders" or "Apostolic Succession"; rather their efficacy is from God alone.

With a few exceptions that were mentioned above, in "protestant" Churches, there is no efficacy and despite the promises of Scripture, neither are they considered or believed to be "means of grace".

So, you can use the the view of the sacraments to identify "protestants" but in doing so, it would tend to exclude Lutherans, and certainly "Confessional Lutherans" from being identified as "Protestant".

There is no simple answer by which a line can be truly drawn.

Mark - I just checked and supposedly the 39 Articles only list Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments instituted by Christ and necessary to salvation and I think that the 39 Articles were/are generally considered the standard for the Anglican faith. Apparently Anglo-Catholics consider the other 5 as sacraments, but Evangelical Anglicans do not. It would seem that if the Book of Common Prayer lists 7 sacraments, that apparently only two are deemed necessary and this is certainly not true with the Apostolic Churches, as they view Confession to a priest as necessary, at least once a year for Catholics (cannot say how often for EOC and OOC) and all three view such confession necessary in the case of mortal/grave sin, except again, with rare exceptions, like someone about to die who cannot make it to a priest.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark - I just checked and supposedly the 39 Articles only list Baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments instituted by Christ and necessary to salvation and I think that the 39 Articles were/are generally considered the standard for the Anglican faith. Apparently Anglo-Catholics consider the other 5 as sacraments, but Evangelical Anglicans do not. It would seem that if the Book of Common Prayer lists 7 sacraments, that apparently only two are deemed necessary and this is certainly not true with the Apostolic Churches, as they view Confession to a priest as necessary, at least once a year for Catholics (cannot say how often for EOC and OOC) and all three view such confession necessary in the case of mortal/grave sin, except again, with rare exceptions, like someone about to die who cannot make it to a priest.

I would have to dig it out, but somewhere I have a BoCP that belonged to my mother; bound in Ivory. I'm not sure how old the edition is, but it would have certainly been prior to WWII; it lists 7. Mom, while raised Methodist in Saskatchewan, came to Ontario to attend College and work prior to WWII, she attend Church with her Aunt and was confirmed Anglican. High Church Tradition in London Ontario.

I don't believe that the 39 Articles are held to be anything more than just another historic Document by most Anglicans, just as the Book of Concord is by the more liberal synods of Lutheranism.

Anglicanism is not a Confessional Church; however some Anglicans are "Confessional Anglicans".

 

[tampasteve]

I don't believe that the 39 Articles are held to be anything more than just another historic Document by most Anglicans, just as the Book of Concord is by the more liberal synods of Lutheranism.

I am not sure about the Anglicans, but in regards to more liberal synods of Lutheranism (such as the ELCA), some do believe the BOC is more than a historical document. The ELCA still "affirms it" as they say:
"The Book of Concord includes seven writings composed by Luther and others. Lutheran churches around the world have affirmed these writings, and the ELCA affirms them in its governing documents."
where it says:
"This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of
Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the
Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large
Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid
interpretations of the faith of the Church."

Now, as to how the BOC is interpreted and translated, there is room for interpretation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I should have likely said the 1580 edition; but in truth, few members of the ELCA apart from the clergy even know it exists; and again the ELCA/ELCIC have excluded the Athanasian Creed from their service books. The three ecumenical creeds were the confessional foundation of the Church catholic.

 

[tampasteve]

I should have likely said the 1580 edition; but in truth, few members of the ELCA apart from the clergy even know it exists;

I guess it would depend on the parish, mine has them in the church for anyone interested. But I suspect that most Lutherans in general are not familiar with the BOC, be they LCMS or ELCA, etc. Much as many Catholics are not truly familiar with the CCC, etc.

and again the ELCA/ELCIC have excluded the Athanasian Creed from their service books. The three ecumenical creeds were the confessional foundation of the Church catholic.

Perhaps they are not in the service books, but according to the ELCA "All three are affirmed in the Lutheran confessional writings and in the ELCA’s governing documents. " and "Some Lutheran congregations recite the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday....."

 

[Basil the Great]

I should have likely said the 1580 edition; but in truth, few members of the ELCA apart from the clergy even know it exists; and again the ELCA/ELCIC have excluded the Athanasian Creed from their service books. The three ecumenical creeds were the confessional foundation of the Church catholic.

Mark - Your post reminds me of the time when I attended Lutheran churches in the suburbs of a major MidWest city. Only once in the 4 years that I went to Lutheran services in the suburbs was the Athanasian Creed read. I was astounded at what happened that day. The entire congregation read the creed aloud until it came to the line at the end that referred to those who do not believe in eternal punishment are lost. I am not lying. What happened next was amazing. Almost the entire congregation went silent and refused to affirm that lack of belief in eternal punishment = loss of salvation. Maybe the pastor and 2-3% of the congregation affirmed said line, at most..... Yes, this was an ELCA church. Still, it obviously showed that the 97% of us that went silent (myself included) did not believe the Athanasian Creed's claim regarding the necessity of believing in eternal punishment. Now this does not mean that 97% of the congregation refuted the possibility/probability of eternal punishment, but we can safely assume that they did not believe that one's salvation is dependent upon affirming such.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've seen LCMS types that are theological inclusivists (yes, they do exist, apparently) wrestle with the Athanasian Creed and come to different interpretations on that line.

I just take it with a grain of salt, realizing its a holdover from a premodern past where religion was tied to empire. Most people in mainstream churches, whether conservative or liberal, don't necessarily believe that people who reject creeds or aren't Christians are going to hell (most are inclusivist to some extent), though it doesn't always stem from a fully worked-out theology.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark - Your post reminds me of the time when I attended Lutheran churches in the suburbs of a major MidWest city. Only once in the 4 years that I went to Lutheran services in the suburbs was the Athanasian Creed read. I was astounded at what happened that day. The entire congregation read the creed aloud until it came to the line at the end that referred to those who do not believe in eternal punishment are lost. I am not lying. What happened next was amazing. Almost the entire congregation went silent and refused to affirm that lack of belief in eternal punishment = loss of salvation. Maybe the pastor and 2-3% of the congregation affirmed said line, at most..... Yes, this was an ELCA church. Still, it obviously showed that the 97% of us that went silent (myself included) did not believe the Athanasian Creed's claim regarding the necessity of believing in eternal punishment. Now this does not mean that 97% of the congregation refuted the possibility/probability of eternal punishment, but we can safely assume that they did not believe that one's salvation is dependent upon affirming such.

I've seen LCMS types that are theological inclusivists (yes, they do exist, apparently) wrestle with the Athanasian Creed and come to different interpretations on that line.

I just take it with a grain of salt, realizing its a holdover from a premodern past where religion was tied to empire. Most people in mainstream churches, whether conservative or liberal, don't necessarily believe that people who reject creeds or aren't Christians are going to hell (most are inclusivist to some extent), though it doesn't always stem from a fully worked-out theology.

This is one of the reasons why the ELCIC/ELCA and the Anglican Church of Canada has dropped it from their service books; this is also why the ELCIC/ELCA do not affirm the 1580 Book of Concord. This is also one of the reasons that we in LCC are not in fellowship with the ELCIC.

Affirmation of the the three ecumenical Creeds is first and foremost the definition of the Church catholic in the west; since Scripture clearly states that there is eternal punishment, the denial of such puts one's self outside the Church. As we confess at the end of the Creed: This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

A lot of these issues go back to an even bigger issue which is the interpretation standards applied to Scripture which is the root cause of the rift between our Synods, and what we in LCC/LCMS see as a departure from orthodoxy by the ELCIC/ELCA.

 

[tampasteve]

This is one of the reasons why the ELCIC/ELCA and the Anglican Church of Canada has dropped it from their service books; this is also why the ELCIC/ELCA do not affirm the 1580 Book of Concord. This is also one of the reasons that we in LCC are not in fellowship with the ELCIC.

Affirmation of the the three ecumenical Creeds is first and foremost the definition of the Church catholic in the west; since Scripture clearly states that there is eternal punishment, the denial of such puts one's self outside the Church. As we confess at the end of the Creed: This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Affirmation of the Creeds, the ELCA affirms them. Affirmation of the 1580 BOC - no that is not the definition of the Church and inclusion of the creeds is not why the ELCA does not use the 1580 version. The ELCA does affirm the BOC, and the current version of it from Fortress includes all three creeds. Further, as I quoted, the ELCA does affirm all three creeds. Here is is again:
"All three are affirmed in the Lutheran confessional writings and in the ELCA’s governing documents. "

A lot of these issues go back to an even bigger issue which is the interpretation standards applied to Scripture which is the root cause of the rift between our Synods, and what we in LCC/LCMS see as a departure from orthodoxy by the ELCIC/ELCA.

That is true, interpretation is one of the main reasons we have so many denominations as it is.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Affirmation of the Creeds, the ELCA affirms them. Affirmation of the 1580 BOC - no that is not the definition of the Church and inclusion of the creeds is not why the ELCA does not use the 1580 version. The ELCA does affirm the BOC, and the current version of it from Fortress includes all three creeds. Further, as I quoted, the ELCA does affirm all three creeds. Here is is again:
"All three are affirmed in the Lutheran confessional writings and in the ELCA’s governing documents. "


That is true, interpretation is one of the main reasons we have so many denominations as it is.

This, after it was clearly stated above that the concept of eternal punishment is now a foreign concept most ELCA laity and likely clergy, since they allow the disregard, sets on clearly at odds with the Athanasian Creed; which, as I stated above, is one of the standards applied to orthodoxy in the western Church; that which is outside the definition of orthodoxy, is heterodox. This is the way my Church sees it, and I agree with my Church. By this standard, the Catholic Church is orthodox, just not Lutheran.

 

[tampasteve]

This, after it was clearly stated above that the concept of eternal punishment is now a foreign concept most ELCA laity and likely clergy, since they allow the disregard, sets on clearly at odds with the Athanasian Creed; which, as I stated above, is one of the standards applied to orthodoxy in the western Church; that which is outside the definition of orthodoxy, is heterodox. This is the way my Church sees it, and I agree with my Church. By this standard, the Catholic Church is orthodox, just not Lutheran.

I feel your statement is too broad. First, not all parishes have stopped using the Athanasian Creed, mine has used it and the ELCA says others do. Second, the Creed is still affirmed officially and in ELCA published texts. So, while some, even many, laity and possibly clergy may not agree with the anathemas in the Creed, the ELCA in general officially does and even the people not agreeing with the anathemas would seem to agree with the rest. If the official statements from the ELCA change then I would completely agree, but when they have not then I cannot. If the LCMS wants to state it as you do then that is up to them and their followers, I mean only to position what is actually stated officially by the ELCA and to show that not all parishes are as you have been lead to believe.