Exploring the Lutheran Faith

[FireDragon76]

Yes, I got that.

I don't think that discounts the scholastic approach altogether (right now I'm wading through Luther's De Servo Arbitrio), but we aren't in the 16th century anymore and not everybody's conscience is tortured by an oppressive superstate of institutional religion. So I don't think scholasticism is always the right tool. What is needed is what would be called theoria or vision.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think that discounts the scholastic approach altogether (right now I'm wading through Luther's De Servo Arbitrio), but we aren't in the 16th century anymore and not everybody's conscience is tortured by an oppressive superstate of institutional religion. So I don't think scholasticism is always the right tool. What is needed is what would be called theoria or vision.

I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by a "scholastic approach". If you mean Aquinas' Scholasticism, Luther himself was strongly opposed to it. His successors, however (Melanchthon, et. al.) sneaked it back in ... with not altogether admirable results.

My point being that while labels are important for communication, when practicing faith I make no attempt to adhere to any particular school of thought.

So, likewise, you'll need to clarify your theoria.

 

[bèlla]

They-the LCMS-seem to me to have a strict interpretation of the Bible while keeping the Mercy that was shown by Jesus in numerous situations. I wanted that balance.

I am seeking a similar balance and appreciate I'm not alone in that desire.

While I was part of the Catholic Church for 20 years, I knew just a handful of people. In this church I have already been taken in by a number of people. I realize that part of this is just the particular congregation I've been lucky enough to be a part of, however I think that since I was a member of a number of different Catholic congregations in a number of states, that the difference must somehow be also in the beliefs. The fruit is very apparent in this synod. They also walk their talk and are quite involved in community charities.

Thank you for your candor. Your story resonated with me and I've had similar experiences. I am desirous of fruit and have a LCMS church in my neighborhood. The sense of community and approach to faith you've shared is very appealing.

You've confirmed my thoughts.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

I am seeking a similar balance and appreciate I'm not alone in that desire.



Thank you for your candor. Your story resonated with me and I've had similar experiences. I am desirous of fruit and have a LCMS church in my neighborhood. The sense of community and approach to faith you've shared is very appealing.

You've confirmed my thoughts.

I'm really glad if I could be of help. All blessings to you in your search.

 

[FireDragon76]

How would you describe the similarities mentioned? Would you consider them Calvinists?

Reformed churches, just like Lutherans, are a confessional Christian movement. They are "Calvinist" in the sense that Calvin contributed a great deal to Reformed religion, but it would be reductionistic to merely focus on Calvin, just as it would be reductionistic to focus only on a few quotes from Lutheran and pretend that is Lutheranism.

At the time of the Reformation there was a loose consensus among humanists. Also, Calvin was an adherent of Luther's ideas before he went to join Zwingli's reformation in Switzerland. So there are more than a few similarities. But the emphases are different, as is the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and there is sometimes disagreement over emphases in Christology. Reformed Christianity traditionally was also more radical, rationalistic, and totalizing than Lutheranism, which retains some of the tone of medieval religion and mysticism (though some LCMS Lutherans mighty deny this, as they make a bugaboo of mysticism, they simply don't understand the background in Germany during Luther's life).

Continental Reformed churches tend to emphasize unconditional election less, and sacraments more, than what we typically find in the US among "Calvinists". There are some American churches, such as the United Church of Christ, that have congregations descended from immigrants who brought this type of religion to the US. They did not typically fit in with American Presbyterians, who tended to be heavily involved in evangelicalism and revivalism.

 

[kdm1984]

I'm LCMS Lutheran because I indeed think they have the best balance among theology, mercy, and fruit. Here is my background for context and why I've come to such a view.

I was raised WELS (this was the most stable and structured time for my family -- I have fond memories of my early childhood), my parents later became obsessed with End Times predictions/speculations and Pentecostal ideas (from the TBN television channel), watched my parents get looser and looser in their theology and more and more obsessed with incorrectly picking the years for the 'end of the world'/'rapture,' saw the ill effects it had on my family (my mother falling for Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Irvin Baxter, holy laughter, pleading the blood of Jesus, and other unbiblical Pentecostal nonsense), convinced my dad to finally return to the church for accountability (we had been doing nothing but fruitless eschatological-obsessed home church, and watching fruitless Christian TBN TV, for almost 20 years -- I picked Calvary Chapel, which he still attends sporadically, and which I attended for a few years), spent about a decade being heavily recruited and influenced by legalistic argumentative arrogant Reformed theonomic Vision Forum patriarchal Calvinists online (what a contrast between that and dispensational Pentecostalism, goodness gracious!), spent half a year at an independent fundamental Baptist church, and finally got tired of the excesses of all those aforementioned groups and returned to confessional Lutheranism (LCMS instead of WELS, because the differences are minimal theologically, yet LCMS has a larger presence for church involvement in my area -- I had no qualms about the minor differences between the two, so I was fine with picking them instead of WELS).

Lutherans have great theological depth without the arrogance and excessive black-and-white thinking of patriarchal Calvinists, who think Biblical womanhood is a sexless Victorian ISFJ slave robot who must never leave her home without hubby's permission, and without the excessive gray thinking of theological liberals, who think women should hold pastoral positions, and yet paradoxically also think all women are sexless Victorian robots who never get physically or visually attracted to handsome men, and that every glance or touch from a man is somehow tantamount to rape. (Yeah I have some strong opinions on the doormat vs. the MeToo excesses of both camps; they are equally ridiculous and absurd.)

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm LCMS Lutheran because I indeed think they have the best balance among theology, mercy, and fruit. Here is my background for context and why I've come to such a view.

I was raised WELS (this was the most stable and structured time for my family -- I have fond memories of my early childhood), my parents later became obsessed with End Times predictions/speculations and Pentecostal ideas (from the TBN television channel), watched my parents get looser and looser in their theology and more and more obsessed with incorrectly picking the years for the 'end of the world'/'rapture,' saw the ill effects it had on my family (my mother falling for Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Irvin Baxter, holy laughter, pleading the blood of Jesus, and other unbiblical Pentecostal nonsense), convinced my dad to finally return to the church for accountability (we had been doing nothing but fruitless eschatological-obsessed home church, and watching fruitless Christian TBN TV, for almost 20 years -- I picked Calvary Chapel, which he still attends sporadically, and which I attended for a few years), spent about a decade being heavily recruited and influenced by legalistic argumentative arrogant Reformed theonomic Vision Forum patriarchal Calvinists online (what a contrast between that and dispensational Pentecostalism, goodness gracious!), spent half a year at an independent fundamental Baptist church, and finally got tired of the excesses of all those aforementioned groups and returned to confessional Lutheranism (LCMS instead of WELS, because the differences are minimal theologically, yet LCMS has a larger presence for church involvement in my area -- I had no qualms about the minor differences between the two, so I was fine with picking them instead of WELS).

Lutherans have great theological depth without the arrogance and excessive black-and-white thinking of patriarchal Calvinists, who think Biblical womanhood is a sexless Victorian ISFJ slave robot who must never leave her home without hubby's permission, and without the excessive gray thinking of theological liberals, who think women should hold pastoral positions, and yet paradoxically also think all women are sexless Victorian robots who never get physically or visually attracted to handsome men, and that every glance or touch from a man is somehow tantamount to rape. (Yeah I have some strong opinions on the doormat vs. the MeToo excesses of both camps; they are equally ridiculous and absurd.)

A year ago I read an LCMS pastor discussion how maybe emphasizing biblical inerrancy sets up people to become absorbed into American evangelicalism, and talking about your background reminded me of that. His antidote, BTW, was less emphasizing the Bible and more about the sacramental life of the Church, which is something I don't always see LCMS folks doing.

I'm always perpelexed how so many folks in the US grow up Lutheran and wander off elsewhere, and I think it's because the emphasis on biblical inerrancy and the Word of God (as we talk about the Bible) can make it sound like being Lutheran is about biblicism, when its really more complicated than that.

 

[FireDragon76]

BTW if you want a general Lutheran resource, I would recommend Just and Sinner, with Pr. Jordan Cooper. He has a youtube channel and does podcasts. He's in a smaller synod, not the LCMS (I think it's ELC?). I like how he also discusses Church history, something I think is important for a Lutheran approach so that we don't merely become biblicists like American evangelicals, but we contextualize the Reformation within the wider history of the Church.

 

[Tigger45]

BTW if you want a general Lutheran resource, I would recommend Just and Sinner, with Pr. Jordan Cooper. He has a youtube channel and does podcasts. He's in a smaller synod, not the LCMS (I think it's ELC?). I like how he also discusses Church history, something I think is important for a Lutheran approach so that we don't merely become biblicists like American evangelicals, but we contextualize the Reformation within the wider history of the Church.

AALC

 

[kdm1984]

A year ago I read an LCMS pastor discussion how maybe emphasizing biblical inerrancy sets up people to become absorbed into American evangelicalism, and talking about your background reminded me of that. His antidote, BTW, was less emphasizing the Bible and more about the sacramental life of the Church, which is something I don't always see LCMS folks doing.

I'm always perpelexed how so many folks in the US grow up Lutheran and wander off elsewhere, and I think it's because the emphasis on biblical inerrancy and the Word of God (as we talk about the Bible) can make it sound like being Lutheran is about biblicism, when its really more complicated than that.

The one I go to emphasizes both inerrancy and the sacraments, but unlike Calvinist Biblicists, they don't run marathons with supposed principles like 'Biblical womanhood.' Calvinists love to go on about interpeting Scripture in localized and analytic context, but many of them nonetheless don't take descriptive vs. prescriptive passages into proper global context, and so there are many conservative Calvinist women think (and are taught) that it's a sin if they work, or if they don't home-school their children, because there weren't explicit Biblical precedents for that kind of thing (in Bible times, there weren't secretaries or public school systems).

Gender differences are indeed emphasized to such an extreme in some of their circles that they think men and women sin in fundamentally different ways. Rather than acknowledge generalities, a number of them think that lusting is an absolute, and only men can commit that sin.

For all their systemizing, and emphasis on analytic empirical thinking, I find a lot of their doctrinaire reasoning in these instances to be rather silly and stupid. I don't see that kind of thinking in the conservative Lutheran churches -- and likewise, their blogs, forums, etc., don't have that kind of nightmarish legalism or arguing that is so typical of online conservative Calvinism, who believe they are commanded to go around correcting the other Protestant 'heretics' who deviate one iota from any of their pet dogmatisms.

 

[FireDragon76]

The one I go to emphasizes both inerrancy and the sacraments, but unlike Calvinist Biblicists, they don't run marathons with supposed principles like 'Biblical womanhood.' Calvinists love to go on about interpeting Scripture in localized and analytic context, but many of them nonetheless don't take descriptive vs. prescriptive passages into proper global context, and so there are many conservative Calvinist women think (and are taught) that it's a sin if they work, or if they don't home-school their children, because there weren't explicit Biblical precedents for that kind of thing (in Bible times, there weren't secretaries or public school systems).

Gender differences are indeed emphasized to such an extreme in some of their circles that they think men and women sin in fundamentally different ways. Rather than acknowledge generalities, a number of them think that lusting is an absolute, and only men can commit that sin.

For all their systemizing, and emphasis on analytic empirical thinking, I find a lot of their doctrinaire reasoning in these instances to be rather silly and stupid. I don't see that kind of thinking in the conservative Lutheran churches -- and likewise, their blogs, forums, etc., don't have that kind of nightmarish legalism or arguing that is so typical of online conservative Calvinism, who believe they are commanded to go around correcting the other Protestant 'heretics' who deviate one iota from any of their pet dogmatisms.

You would see more emphasis on gender roles in WELS. They don't allow women to vote in the church, LCMS does.

 

[kdm1984]

You would see more emphasis on gender roles in WELS. They don't allow women to vote in the church, LCMS does.

Right, that is one of the handful of differences between them. Still a far cry from forbidding the woman to work, vote, go to college, or even have masculine interests, as was the case in Vision Forum Calvinism by Doug Phillips.

Me: I work in direct care, and my dad allows it. This is a job with lots of women, like teaching and nursing. Even your own mother was a teacher, no?

VF Guy: Yes, but just because women are good at those things, doesn't mean they should have those jobs.

VF Woman Cheerleader: Good logic, VF guy!

VF Woman behind the scenes: kdm1984, your dad allowed you to do the direct care job, therefore it is fine. The VF Guy isn't your father. Your father is the one with authority over you, and so if he is fine with you working, that takes precedent over VF Guy's opinion.

Me: Hey VF guy, I mentioned my dad is fine with my work. So what's your deal.

VF Guy: Well, I guess it's ok then.

This was one of many real-life online debates between me and VF Guy.

 

[FireDragon76]

AALC

Great video, that explains alot about his approach. His Lutheranism is closer to some conservatives in the ELCA, whereas LCMS differ on some doctrines, such as the pastoral ministry. The LCMS have a higher ecclessiology in some respects, even though they don't have bishops.

One thing I appreciate about Pr. Jordan is that he has a Reformed background, I actually think that helps him have a very well-rounded approach. Reading him initially when I was exploring Lutheranism was less jarring than reading somebody like Gerhard Forde, who emphasizes the radical nature of Luther's message. Pr. Jordan emphasizes continuity with the Catholic past. Of course I appreciate what Forde had to say as well, but it must be kept within its context of a Lutheran religious tradition that is pressured on all sides by moralism and legalism.

 

[Tigger45]

Great video, that explains alot about his approach. His Lutheranism is closer to some conservatives in the ELCA, whereas LCMS differ on some doctrines, such as the pastoral ministry. The LCMS have a higher ecclessiology in some respects, even though they don't have bishops.

One thing I appreciate about Pr. Jordan is that he has a Reformed background, I actually think that helps him have a very well-rounded approach. Reading him initially when I was exploring Lutheranism was less jarring than reading somebody like Gerhard Forde, who emphasizes the radical nature of Luther's message. Pr. Jordan emphasizes continuity with the Catholic past. Of course I appreciate what Forde had to say as well, but it must be kept within its context of a Lutheran religious tradition that is pressured on all sides by moralism and legalism.

Right, I appreciate his balance too. His planning a video about Eastern Orthodoxy and why he doesn’t see Luthanism as a stepping stone to it for himself.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right, I appreciate his balance too. His planning a video about Eastern Orthodoxy and why he doesn’t see Luthanism as a stepping stone to it for himself.

I'll have to look into that.

Orthodoxy and Lutheranism have some points of contact vs. Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism really has alot of baggage from Aristotle, whereas Luther seems to have been influenced by medieval Neo-Platonism. Pr. Jordan points this out in some of his podcasts and books. This is particularly obvious to me, in Luther's Heidelberg Disputation:

"19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25)."

Also, our view of the Sacraments fits more with Neo-Platonism than late medieval theology influenced by debates between theologians that were essentially Aristotilians engaged in infighting.

 

[Tigger45]

I'll have to look into that.

Orthodoxy and Lutheranism have some points of contact vs. Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism really has alot of baggage from Aristotle, whereas Luther seems to have been influenced by medieval Neo-Platonism. Pr. Jordan points this out in some of his podcasts and books. This is particularly obvious to me, in Luther's Heidelberg Disputation:



Also, our view of the Sacraments fits more with Neo-Platonism than late medieval theology influenced by debates between theologians that were essentially Aristotilians engaged in infighting.

Well sure, we are all products of our innate personalities and environment experiences. Something I’ve tried to express to our Neo-Evangelical brothers and sisters that they too come to biblical interpretations with biases and that’s why its imperative to study the writings of the EFC’s at least to help define the original intent of the writers of scripture. Not that Luther was perfect but he put this consept into action as a professor teaching his students through the prospectives of the EFC’s.

"19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25)."

Let’s not also forget Hebrews 1:11
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Something I just experienced again in my life where God uses obscure ways ‘to us’ to bring us to a place where He chooses to operate within our lives.

So the fact that someone lables something Neo-Platonism doesn’t in itself negate the fact that it could be biblically accurate.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well sure, we are all products of our innate personalities and environment experiences. Something I’ve tried to express to our Neo-Evangelical brothers and sisters that they too come to biblical interpretations with biases and that’s why its imperative to study the writings of the EFC’s at least to help define the original intent of the writers of scripture. Not that Luther was perfect but he put this consept into action as a professor teaching his students through the prospectives of the EFC’s.

"19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25)."

Let’s not also forget Hebrews 1:11
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Something I just experienced again in my life where God uses obscure ways ‘to us’ to bring us to a place where He chooses to operate within our lives.

So the fact that someone lables something Neo-Platonism doesn’t in itself negate the fact that it could be biblically accurate.

I think the real problem for going from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy: they have an extremely weak Theology of the Cross, if it's there at all. Alot of the way they do theology is infused with the Theology of Glory, as a result, which causes them to see most things about the Church as divine, infallible, and irreformable. That is very much at odds with western cultural norms we have inherited from Luther and other reformers, and can easily lead to an atmosphere that discourages transparency and personal integrity.

David Wagschall goes into this on his blog, Under the Sun. He actually was at St. Vladimir's for a while as a professor, and was also in the OCA, so I can understand where he was coming from.

 

[bèlla]

my parents later became obsessed with End Times predictions/speculations and Pentecostal ideas (from the TBN television channel)

What attracted them? Have you determined what they were seeking?

Many of the things you've described seem like impediments to God. If I had to wade through the rhetoric, arguments, and extra biblical stumbling blocks you've mentioned its unlikely I'd ever join.

I want God without the fluff. I have no interest in debates, theological arguments, or anything along those lines. I don't know if Lutheranism is the right path and the Holy Spirit hasn't confirmed this either. My faith is simple. I know Him; trust Him; love Him.

What I'm seeking most of all is the company of others who feel the same.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well sure, we are all products of our innate personalities and environment experiences. Something I’ve tried to express to our Neo-Evangelical brothers and sisters that they too come to biblical interpretations with biases and that’s why its imperative to study the writings of the EFC’s at least to help define the original intent of the writers of scripture. Not that Luther was perfect but he put this consept into action as a professor teaching his students through the prospectives of the EFC’s.

One thing I like about Pr. Jordan Cooper is that he takes the ECF's seriously in his work, without engaging in the typical lazy scholarship that many Protestants engage in.

What attracted them? Have you determined what they were seeking?

Many of the things you've described seem like impediments to God. If I had to wade through the rhetoric, arguments, and extra biblical stumbling blocks you've mentioned its unlikely I'd ever join.

I want God without the fluff. I have no interest in debates, theological arguments, or anything along those lines. I don't know if Lutheranism is the right path and the Holy Spirit hasn't confirmed this either. My faith is simple. I know Him; trust Him; love Him.

What I'm seeking most of all is the company of others who feel the same.

Lutheranism is not necessarily an overly intellectual approach for the typical laity, but we do value scholarship and intellectual study, especially for pastors or those who are involved in instruction.

 

[bèlla]

Lutheranism is not necessarily an overly intellectual approach for the typical laity, but we do value scholarship and intellectual study, especially for pastors or those who are involved in instruction.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach. I'm looking within and listening for the Holy Spirit's leading and He's silent as is my heart. Sometimes questions don't beget answers but deeper understanding instead.

Thank you for your input.