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

[Lawrence7]

I deleted a post here, but I'm feeling the need to bring it back up.

As Lutherans we have a hard time giving simple answers to theological questions. We must have doctrinal purity and cannot abide ambiguity, especially among ourselves.

In this regard, I offer what I believe is the single greatest difference between Orthodox and Lutheran. And this is in regards to Oral Traditions.

Many oral traditions of the orthodox faiths (Eastern and Western) are respected and often practiced by Lutherans, but considered 'Adiaphora' in context of salvation.

This was addressed early on in the protestant dialogue, and the first truly distinguishing difference between Protestant thought and traditional Orthodoxy.

RE: "The Augsburg Confession states that the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike."

From this point forward, numerous Protestant reformers debated this to different conclusions. With the groups we now identify as Lutherans holding to this Augsburg confession.

I am not a Lutheran because I'm a Lutheran. I worship as a Lutheran because my Christian Faith views fit the best with Luthernaism. (ie: adherence to the Augsburg confession and Book of Concord).

I would be just as happy identifying as an 'Augsburgian' or 'Concordian' as I am a Lutheran. Ultimately I am a Christian, first. Identified in modern Lutheran circles as a 'Confessional Evangelical' who attends "xxx" church in "xxx" denomination.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Oops. An extra posting here, and I can't find a delete button.

Members cannot delete posts. And staff usually won't (except for violations). People usually edit the extra post down to something like "duplicate" or just a dot.

When the forums are glitching and everything triple-posts it can be disruptive, but a single extra post here and there won't hurt anything.

 

[Lawrence7]

There is no simple answer to the question of difference between Orthodox and Lutheran with regard to modern identities.

The question we're discussing is really more about the differences between Eastern Orthodox doctrine and doctrines defined by Augsburg Confession and Book of Concord (ie: Lutheranism).

So, having said all the previous stuff... what is a real short answer?

Lutherans accept the three ecumenical creeds; Apostles', Athanasian, and Nicene (with 'fillioque' clause).

Eastern Orthodox, as I understand it, accept the original Nicene creed (without the 'flilioque' clause).

RE: (We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" the debate concerned whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from only the Father, or from the Father and the Son [filioque in Latin]. The phrase "and the Son" was not in the original Greek version of the Creed accepted at Nicæa and Constantinople..) - (Ecumenical Christian Creeds)

Lutherans effectively share Eastern Orthodox views on Sacramental Baptism and Sacramental Communion with regard to 'Real Presence', but debate what real presence actually means. Some Lutherans also include Confession/Absolution Rites as Sacramental, as do Orthodox. Additional Sacraments held by the Orthodox are not held by Lutherans.

Lutherans and Orthodox agree on 66 Bible books as Scripture. Difference is that Orthodox have more than these 66 Books. And while Oral Traditions rank highly in Orthodox doctrine, they hold no authority in Lutheran doctrine.

Lutherans and Orthodox have differing views on man's free will in context of our fallen nature, as indicated in a previous post.

>>>

Now... for another wrinkle...

A large portion of the Lutheran community (at least here in N.America) are adopting practices more in line with Arminianism and joining in worship and identity with various denominations of that view.

This generates much confusion in discussion doctrinal and denominational disunity. This is why many Lutherans are starting to identify as Confessional Lutherans and/or Confessional Evangelicals who conservatively adhere to the Augsburg confession. Versus those who liberally commune in fellowship with the various Main-Line Protestant denominations.

(A loosely applied use of the terms conservative and liberal.)

As a self-identified "Confessional Evangelical" I share more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy that I do with a large measure of N.American Lutherans. But not enough to change my denominational affiliation.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think there is a significant amount of debate about what communion means in Lutheranism. At most there is disagreement between receptionists and consecrationists,and both are valid Lutheran opinions, but our confessions are fairly clear on the matter otherwise.

 

[Lawrence7]

Alerts 1 I don't think there is a significant amount of debate about what communion means in Lutheranism. At most there is disagreement between receptionists and consecrationists,and both are valid Lutheran opinions, but our confessions are fairly clear on the matter otherwise.

Indeed. The profound mystery of this most simple thing ... Luther was consecrationist in his views, while Melanchthon leaned more receptionist.

While the Clergy continue to debate, the Laity generally accept a "Real Presence" view and move on.

My understanding is that Eastern Orthodox are consecrationist in context of these two ideas. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

 

[FireDragon76]

Indeed. The profound mystery of this most simple thing ... Luther was consecrationist in his views, while Melanchthon leaned more receptionist.

While the Clergy continue to debate, the Laity generally accept a "Real Presence" view and move on.

My understanding is that Eastern Orthodox are consecrationist in context of these two ideas. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Melanchthion went beyond Receptionism into actually embracing the Reformed viewpoint wholesale. There were, on the other hand, later Lutheran scholastics in the 17th and 18th centuries that concluded that receptionism was reasonable.

Many Lutherans today believe Consecrationism is the most reasonable position, but we need to respect other perspectives. A Receptionist Lutheran still can consider that Christ is bodily present in the sacrament, as our confessions plainly state, but the emphasis is on the eating of the sacrament and not merely the verbum.

I really think both perspectives have their places. The important thing is to take the sacrament and believe it is truly Christ's body and blood given for me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We (Orthodox) really don't try to delve into the Mysteries and explain philosophically what that means. This is one way Catholicism diverged from Orthodoxy, and it is a tendency most Protestants seem to share.

The water and wine become the Body and Blood through the action of the Holy Spirit ... because Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you ... "

And we tend to be very persistent about resisting change so there is less tendency of faction le developing far into liberal/conservative or confessional/evangelical or what have you (not that there are not persons and groups of people who try to introduce such things, but by the grace of God and the mindset of the Orthodox Church, hopefully they will not get far).

The biggest differences I have seen involve the ideas of the condition of man and man's role in salvation (Lutherans appear to me to be very passive and dismal about man's situation - while Orthodoxy can in some instances present an even more negative view of the sinful inclinations of man, yet we believe that we must cooperate with God in the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ) ... and the other big thing we seem (as far as I can tell) to differ on is our beliefs about the activity of the Holy Spirit. Lutherans must believe in some activity, since they have some Sacraments? But Orthodoxy has never changed in its expectation of actions by the Holy Spirit from the early Church, being fully comfortable with the idea of miracles, healing, and gifts of the Holy Spirit (though not identical to - or in some ways even very similar to - modern-day Pentecostals - that's a whole other discussion).

But those are the biggest differences I see. I can understand and even appreciate that many of the things that Lutherans - if they don't really outright reject, they are at least cautious of and often dismiss as "theologumena" ... what I mean to say is that I can appreciate their caution in areas where they aren't sure. Skepticism and caution are healthy in spiritual matters. But lacking the authority and informing of Tradition, they don't have a context for much of what we Orthodox believe and practice, so those things are often lacking in Lutheranism - and these mostly seem to center in the activity of God in our lives.

Or maybe the Lutherans I know are just very silent on these matters.

 

[FireDragon76]

. But lacking the authority and informing of Tradition, they don't have a context for much of what we Orthodox believe and practice, so those things are often lacking in Lutheranism - and these mostly seem to center in the activity of God in our lives.

Or maybe the Lutherans I know are just very silent on these matters.

I think its more likely the second is a more accurate statement. I would also add its not uncommon for Lutherans to merely have a simple faith, and to have pastors that emphasize only a narrow aspect of the faith. Much of our orthodoxy came out of emphasizing how we were different from Rome.

 

[Lawrence7]

Or maybe the Lutherans I know are just very silent on these matters.

Lutherans are not silent, but do come at it from a different perspective.

I think you hit on a couple very important aspects of this discussion. And it depends on which group of self-identified Lutherans you are talking to. The Lutherans who share fellowship with other denominations leaning toward the modern Arminian movements. Or the Lutherans who reject Arminianism and hold firmly to the historical confessions. In this we're considering the differences between historical Calvinism, Arminianism and Lutheranism, where many people are seeking a compromise between these views.

With Orthodoxy we're considering the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and traditional/historical Lutheranism. We are not seeking compromise here, but rather common ground in Orthodoxy. Our language difficulty, as mentioned previously, is our Confessions written in response to Roman Catholicism rather than Eastern Orthodoxy.

Since we Lutherans have little historical documentation to fall upon concerning EO, our discussions with EO generally falls into the categories as you defined in your last post.

With regard to the work of the Holy Spirit and man, Lutheranism focuses on the work of the Holy Spirit making it all work. Man has a role in it, of course, but not of our own power or volition when separate from the Holy Spirit. Mankind is incapable on any level of 'being Holy' and pleasing to God without the Holy Spirit acting in us first.

If mankind still maintained any means to action salvation, then there would be no absolute need for Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore, man must be fully sinful with no merit in him, and the Holy Spirit must be the sole active agent in our Salvation.

We may accomplish Goodly works on our own merit, but they have no impact on our salvation, because they are of our merit rather than God's merit. In terms of the depravity of man (seemingly Calvinist at times, but not really) Lutheranism generally looks to the good pleasing elements of the Holy Spirit rather than the ugly side of sinful human nature.

It can sound odd when trying to explain it this way but Lutherans tend to glorify in their depravity, rather than grovel. In my depravity God loves me so much he scarified Jesus for me, and in this we find peace and happiness in Jesus and the Holy Spirit rather than self loathing in ourselves.

Lutherans seek doctrinal unity as much as anyone, and would very much like to see a reunification with the Orthodox church, as well as other christian denominations. But through agreement, not compromise.

 

[Lawrence7]

The water and wine become the Body and Blood through the action of the Holy Spirit ... because Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you ... "

I find no disagreement with this statement.

 

[Tigger45]

[QUOTE="Lawrence7, post: 73765033, member: 384566]<snip>It can sound odd when trying to explain it this way but Lutherans tend to glorify in their depravity, rather than grovel.<snip>[/QUOTE]
Nice! ^^

 

[Lawrence7]

The biggest differences I have seen involve the ideas of the condition of man and man's role in salvation.

Following up with some definitions:
Salvation = deliverance
Sanctification = set apart
Justification = declared righteous

I would say that Jesus delivers us, the Holy Spirit sets us apart, and the Father declares us righteous.

In this line of thinking there is no role for man in achieving salvation.

I would say that man's role in this is to receive.

The debate among Protestants is in this last sentence. Is receiving something we must action or do? Or is receiving simply the consequence of God's actions through Jesus and Holy Spirit. Lutheranism embraces 'simply the consequence of'. Other Protestant-isms often embrace some action is necessary.

I'm not clear where Eastern Orthodox stand in this regard.

 

[Lawrence7]

Since we touched on the issue of Man's role in salvation, and we're getting a bit deep in the theological weeds, so to speak, I have a question regarding the issue of semi-Palagianism which teaches that that the innate corruption of man was not so great that the initiative toward Christian commitment is beyond the powers of man’s native will.

What is the Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox view on this?

Lutheranism in context of Augsburg confession and Book of Concord give a big thumbs-down to this semi-Palagian view.

 

[Devin Newsome]

Lutherans hold to the Lutheran Confessions. The Book of Concord and the Augsburg Confession are highly esteemed. As well as Luther’s catechism. That is a major difference with Orthodoxy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since we touched on the issue of Man's role in salvation, and we're getting a bit deep in the theological weeds, so to speak, I have a question regarding the issue of semi-Palagianism which teaches that that the innate corruption of man was not so great that the initiative toward Christian commitment is beyond the powers of man’s native will.

What is the Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox view on this?

Lutheranism in context of Augsburg confession and Book of Concord give a big thumbs-down to this semi-Palagian view.

Good points.... good thread....


1. In MY experience, discussions between East and West are hard..... we tend to do a LOT of talking past each other...


2. IMO, a LOT of the difference flows from a quite different anthropology. In the West, since very early times, we have a strong sense of the fallen-ness of man, his inability, what Calvin called "total depravity." This view is what lead Westerners to so strongly condemn Pelagius and any form of Pelagianism.... and to embrace a sense of monergism. You can probably credit or blame St. Augustine for some of this. In the East, this is simply much less. Man is wounded (or perhaps better, sick) but not Dead. This leads to a quite different relationship to God and a different (and MUCH less developed) concept of Justification. In the East, I sense more a concept of healing, of growing - almost as if Justification (sorta "salvation") in the WESTERN sense doesn't even exist - because it's not needed.


3. In SOME ways, I think the EOC and Lutherans have some similarities that both "miss." Both have a strong sense of MYSTERY and tend to shy away from rationalism, philosophy, pre-science and the dogmatization of theories. "Stewards of the mysteries of God" is an idea in both - although for Lutherans this has more to do with trusting even what we don't/can't comprehend whereas in Orthodoxy, it has more to do with embracing ancient Tradition (without necessarily much head involvement) because it is ancient Tradition. I think both TOO desire to have some "balance" or tension between authority and accountability, both have a sense that the church is more than me, both have a sense of community and a discomfort with individualism - especially authoritarian individualism. I don't think the "merger" some hoped for in the Reformation was ever possible, but I think in SOME ways, we are more similar to each other than either is to Catholicism (especially that of the 15th/16th Century).


Yup..... I very rarely post here.... because I'm active elsewhere (MUCH too active!) - no longer CARM (I rejected that a long time ago) but elsewhere, in a community that's a much better "fit" for me as a Lutheran. But I peak over here fairly often.... and miss many here, some of which posted in this thread.


Sorry.


- Josiah

 

[Lawrence7]

3. In SOME ways, I think the EOC and Lutherans have some similarities that both "miss." Both have a strong sense of MYSTERY and tend to shy away from rationalism, philosophy, pre-science and the dogmatization of theories.
- Josiah

The majority of Christian denominations strive for Orthodoxy, and this places Lutherans and Eastern Orthodoxy in a favorable position for discussion.

This quote is appropriate in this regard:

Luther: "The great difference between doctrine and life is obvious, even as the difference between heaven and earth. Life may be unclean, sinful, and inconsistent; but doctrine must be pure, holy, sound, unchanging ... not a tittle or letter may be omitted, however much life may fail to meet the requirements of doctrine. This is so because doctrine is God's Word, and God's truth alone, whereas life is partly our own doing.... God will have patience with man's moral failings and imperfections and forgive them. But He cannot, will not, and shall not tolerate a man's altering or abolishing doctrine itself. For doctrine involves His exalted, divine Majesty itself (WA, 30 111, 343 f.) "

 

[Lawrence7]

And we tend to be very persistent about resisting change so there is less tendency of faction le developing far into liberal/conservative or confessional/evangelical or what have you (not that there are not persons and groups of people who try to introduce such things, but by the grace of God and the mindset of the Orthodox Church, hopefully they will not get far).

From reading through previous posts, it seems the EO thinking involves education, history, and feelings as well as intellect in the understanding of orthodox doctrine. Whereas Lutherans embrace all these ideas, we are generally accused of leaving out the feelings part of this and focusing too heavily on the intellectual.

Lutherans are often referred to as Renegade Catholics. In this, the Lutheran Confessions are based on Catholic history, traditions and doctrine. The difference being, of course, where we disagree with Roman Catholicism regarding issues of true Orthodoxy. It should not surprise us, then, of our interest in dialoguing with the Eastern Orthodox churches regarding these same issues.

But where to start, for the Eastern folks, to understand what Lutheranism is really all about? It’s pretty much all spelled out in the Book of Concord.

Where we go from here involves several comparative doctrine discussions between various factions of Modern Lutherans as well as various other Protestant denominations. I’m purpose trying to stay away from entertaining these discussions in this thread.

 

[Lawrence7]

... and the other big thing we seem (as far as I can tell) to differ on is our beliefs about the activity of the Holy Spirit. Lutherans must believe in some activity, since they have some Sacraments? But Orthodoxy has never changed in its expectation of actions by the Holy Spirit from the early Church, being fully comfortable with the idea of miracles, healing, and gifts of the Holy Spirit (though not identical to - or in some ways even very similar to - modern-day Pentecostals - that's a whole other discussion).

This question dove-tails with the discussion of Free Will, from my perspective, where the work of the Holy Spirit is evident in and through our works.

Lutherans believe in Free Will, but not in a guaranteed spirit of Holiness. We can choose to do good works, or course. But only with the Spirit of God working through us may we do good things in a spirit of Holiness that is God pleasing.

We cannot choose to do good things in order to become Holy, therefore any good works of our own merit do not count toward righteousness. What does count toward righteousness is Faith and Repentance, with and through the Holy Spirit. Likewise, good works with and through the Holy Spirit are Holy in consequence.

The work of the Holy Spirit is evident in our Faith, Repentance, and consequential good works which become a form of Worship and therein Glorifying to/of God. In short, with the Holy Spirit working through us, our choices to do good are accomplished to God's glory rather than our own selfish interests.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just wanted to thank everyone for the tone of the discussion. And I intend to post replies. I just want to do it when I have more than a few minutes to spare, as it deserves real attention. Hopefully this evening.

And I'm not opposed to any productive direction as far as the discussion goes. I had a purpose in creating this thread, but my immediate needs at the time were satisfied several years ago. I'm happy to continue the dialogue on a deeper level now that I was understanding at that time.

Thanks again, everyone. Hopefully I'll get those replies within 24 hours - it's Spring Break here (but also Great Lent for me) so I'm trying to get caught up on everything.

 

[Lawrence7]

And I'm not opposed to any productive direction as far as the discussion goes. I had a purpose in creating this thread, but my immediate needs at the time were satisfied several years ago. I'm happy to continue the dialogue on a deeper level now that I was understanding at that time.

I look forward to your comments. I might learn a thing or two

If I may leave this quote:
"The Church of the Reformation after the death of Luther in one respect resembled the congregation at Corinth in the first century: It was a church highly endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, but at the same time tragically confused and divided. To the Corinthian congregation Paul wrote: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). Paul had no quarrel with the diversity of spiritual gifts he found in that congregation; he rejoiced in all that, provided it did not polarize the church. But there is only one Christ, he says, who is undivided; one Gospel; and all Christians are to be of the same mind and judgment, united in their faith and doctrine.

The Church of the Reformation took Paul's admonition seriously when after Luther's death doctrinal controversies arose and threatened to destroy its unity in the Gospel. The Lutheran churches recognized that the unity of the Spirit which Paul stressed could only be manifested when there was unanimity "in doctrine and in all its articles and ... the right use of the holy sacraments" (FC SD, X, 31)." - Getting into The Theology of Concord by Robert D. Preus