Help figuring out Lutheran theology?

[itisdeliciouscake]

Hello,

Just for some background, I was raised in an evangelical non-denom (aka, baptists who don't wanna be called that) church while attending a Lutheran school up until 4th grade. I was baptized in third grade, after I had made a profession of faith. Around late high-school I began to become less-than-impressed with the faddishness of the church-circles I was in as well as a little confused by the dis-emphasis on the sacraments.

During high-school I began to solidify what I believed about salvation and became quite monergistic/Calvinistic. All this lead me to attend a Presbyterian church when began college (I study Biblical language at Moody Bible Institute). However, the entirety of the time I knew I wasn't really 100% Presbyterian.

Around this time I began to be more comfortable with the idea of infant baptism, although admittedly I still haven't nailed down exactly what I believe. I did however know, that if I were to accept infant baptism it wouldn't be for the same reasons that my Presbyterian friends accepted it. They viewed it more in terms of the continuation of the Covenant of Grace, and thus simply a continuation of the practice of circumcision. I don't really accept full-blown Covenant Theology; I am mildly Dispensationalist (no, not the crazy prophecy-type... I feel like Dispensationalism is caricatured...).

So, while reading Luther in Historical Theology I, I think I began to better understand his view on baptism and it seemed like it wasn't CRAZY far from my own. It didn't seem like Presbyterianism's view with its tight-nit connection to Covenant Theology. Unless I'm misreading Luther? It seems like it's far more concerned with being a declaration and impartation of the Gospel?

So... all of this to say... through this it seems like my theology might be closer to Lutheranism than I thought? Could someone help clarify for me what are the distinctives of Lutheranism? Like... what are the 'non-negotiables' for Lutheran theology? What distinguishes them from Presbyterianism? etc etc...

I'm getting to the point in my life where it seems like I should be nailing down where denomination-wise I sit, particularly since it is likely that I will soon be heading to seminary (ironically enough, there is actually a fairly large Lutheran seminary in my hometown [Ft. Wayne, IN]).

Thank you soooo much for any clarification!!

 

[Moses Medina]

Lutherans believe in 6 chief articles that give you Christianity in its fullest.

They are:

The ten commandments (love God, love neighbor)

The Apostles Creed (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

The Lords Prayer (broken down it is absoluetly everything we could ever hope to pray for)

Baptism, it is visible substance and the word of God, the promise, this saves us, it is a sacrament

Confession and Absolution (daily we live in contrition and repemtance, always remembering our baptism)

The Lords Supper/Eucharist (substance and promise, real body and blood)

In addition, we have the book of concord. These are confessions to the roman catholic church and other church bodies on exactly what lutherans believe and why, all according to scripture.

I have simplified this, if there is any error please someone correct it. I recommemd you gwt the small catechism woth explanation.

 

[Moses Medina]

Here is free version of book of concord. It uses some archaic english but does the job

Welcome to the Book of Concord

 

[Luther073082]

What baptism is: It's water combined with the word and promise of God that if we believe and are baptized we will be saved.

What it does: It is a means of grace, one of several ways in which the grace of God comes to us.

Why we baptize infants: Because we are told to. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded."

God's promises to salvation also extend to children and who are we to say WHEN a child is capable of believing?? It certainly doesn't outline that in the bible as even the unborn John the baptist responded to the unborn Jesus! And who are we to try and say when a child truely needs forgiveness for their sins. The idea that children are not at fault because they don't know what they are doing is entirely a HUMAN IDEA. God never says that children arn't accountable for their sins, certain protestants decided that for him. God certainly never said that children can't understand or have faith, certain protestants decided that for him. And what are said protestants to do when a person because of developmental disability does not ever move beyond the mental capacity of a child? I seem to remember Jesus being pretty positive about having the faith of a child.

Who are we to keep the children from joining the company of Christians through holy baptism? "but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” - Matt 19:14 It would be completely counter to scripture to keep the little children at a distance from God.

This should help you if you havn't read it already. It's a bit more in depth then the small catechism but gives a fuller understanding behind it.

The Large Catechism - Book of Concord

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hello,

Just for some background, I was raised in an evangelical non-denom (aka, baptists who don't wanna be called that) church while attending a Lutheran school up until 4th grade. I was baptized in third grade, after I had made a profession of faith. Around late high-school I began to become less-than-impressed with the faddishness of the church-circles I was in as well as a little confused by the dis-emphasis on the sacraments.

During high-school I began to solidify what I believed about salvation and became quite monergistic/Calvinistic. All this lead me to attend a Presbyterian church when began college (I study Biblical language at Moody Bible Institute). However, the entirety of the time I knew I wasn't really 100% Presbyterian.

Around this time I began to be more comfortable with the idea of infant baptism, although admittedly I still haven't nailed down exactly what I believe. I did however know, that if I were to accept infant baptism it wouldn't be for the same reasons that my Presbyterian friends accepted it. They viewed it more in terms of the continuation of the Covenant of Grace, and thus simply a continuation of the practice of circumcision. I don't really accept full-blown Covenant Theology; I am mildly Dispensationalist (no, not the crazy prophecy-type... I feel like Dispensationalism is caricatured...).

So, while reading Luther in Historical Theology I, I think I began to better understand his view on baptism and it seemed like it wasn't CRAZY far from my own. It didn't seem like Presbyterianism's view with its tight-nit connection to Covenant Theology. Unless I'm misreading Luther? It seems like it's far more concerned with being a declaration and impartation of the Gospel?

So... all of this to say... through this it seems like my theology might be closer to Lutheranism than I thought? Could someone help clarify for me what are the distinctives of Lutheranism? Like... what are the 'non-negotiables' for Lutheran theology? What distinguishes them from Presbyterianism? etc etc...

I'm getting to the point in my life where it seems like I should be nailing down where denomination-wise I sit, particularly since it is likely that I will soon be heading to seminary (ironically enough, there is actually a fairly large Lutheran seminary in my hometown [Ft. Wayne, IN]).

Thank you soooo much for any clarification!!

If you want a really good handle on Lutheran theology, I would highly recommend Robert Kolb's The Christian Faith: A Lutheran Exposition. Reading it is a basic entry requirement when applying to seminary (I went to Ft. Wayne's elder sister in St. Louis), and I found it a really good basis for the kind of higher-level work we did once in systematics classes. Another great book is The Lutheran Difference, by Edward A. Engelbrecht, which explains Lutheranism from scripture and then compares its doctrines with other major branches of Christianity. Reading them together would probably be pretty profitable.

Now, in case you don't have the time or money to read those two, allow me to answer your question: Lutheranism definitely has a number of structuring motifs like covenant theology, but they're just that: motifs that run through our theology and help organize it, but without replacing the doctrinal practices themselves. Covenant theology definitely can be found, especially in Luther's doctrine of baptism, but it is merely one of many. Thus while we have a doctrine of baptism- that baptism is God's act, and that it can and should be performed upon infants as well as converts, and that it actually brings the person into God's family and regenerates them by grace alone through faith alone- the explanation of how that fits in to scripture through covenant theology is more about organizing theology than about decreeing doctrine. The doctrine itself is completely practical, whereas the organizing structure or motif merely helps everything flow nicely (but not "too" nicely).

Most of these organizing motifs are dualities. Here are some of them:

Theology of glory and theology of the cross: This duality helps one asses any given theology in order to tell whether it is a theology of God revealed on the cross of a theology of God's glory apart from the cross, and thus humanity's glory apart from the cross. Luther's Heidelburg Disputation helps explain this.

Law and Gospel: The three uses of the law, as in Calvinism, and the Gospel, which help us read scripture and minister to souls.

God naked and God clothed: This duality reminds us to look for God where he has revealed himself because the nude God is always the condemning God of the book of Job, a God of law and thus, however good, always a god of condemnation. God clothed, rather, is God married to creation and revealed through created things, whether the humanity of Jesus, the words of the Bible, or the elements of the sacraments.

God revealed and God hidden: This duality is similar to the above, but helps us know where to seek God: namely where he speaks, his Word, whether the Word Incarnate in Jesus, the word of the Bible, or the word of grace given to us in the sacraments. It leads naturally to:

Word and Sacrament: This duality shows us how word and sacrament always work together, never apart. Both are all-powerful acts of God, but the word always prepares us for receiving grace in the sacraments, and the sacraments are working realities because of the word.

Two kinds of righteousness: This duality distinguishes between passive righteousness, which we receive from God and is the basis for our relationship with God, and active righteousness, which is our work in the realm of the world. It helps explain why we still need to do good works in the world even though good works do not in any way establish or maintain our passive righteousness before God. This duality could also be called a doctrine of two spheres of action, or two kinds of relationships: with God, and with the world.

The two kingdoms. This is duality is how Lutherans address church and state. Note: the two kingdoms are not church and state. Rather, the right-hand kingdom is the kingdom of grace, and the left-hand kingdom is the kingdom of law. The state is always the kingdom of law, whereas the church is both. Thus, when the church does good works in society, it acts in a sphere subordinate to government; when it dispenses grace through word and sacrament, it acts in its own unique sphere that no other earthly power has. And that's one way we keep the church's gospel mission and her social mission in perspective; while there are other entities in the world that can do good works in the left-hand kingdom, the church has the unique mission of proclaiming the gospel in word and sacrament, and thus must keep her ultimate priorities there.

Obviously you don't have to internalize and memorize all of that. It's just to show how we our doctrines pretty quickly move from theory to practice, from theology to the worshiping life of the church, by the use of these dualities. Note, too, that they're not all the same: in some one is totally bad or mostly bad (theology of glory, or God naked), whereas in others its really not clear (the law, which has positive uses in addition to its accusatory function, or God naked), and in words the two are equally good (word and sacrament, the two kingdoms). So don't believe anyone who tells you that it can all be boiled down to "law and gospel." That's a really important one for Lutherans, especially in the LCMS, but it's just one among many.

In the end, most of these dualities don't actually solve any problems as you might expect from Calvinist's covenant theology. The dualities between the hidden God and God revealed doesn't help us seek out the hidden God or do away with him, but merely gets us to a crisis point when we seek out God revealed where he wants himself to be found- in cradle, cross, and crypt, in incarnation, scripture, and sacrament. The two kinds of righteousness helps us settle the question of our salvation through a completely passive dependence on God's grace, but it impels us even more to work for the good of our neighbor without regard to what good works could possibly merit for ourselves. They're messy, not neat, and in being messy they help apply doctrine for a messy world.

Of course, Kolb's The Christian Faith isn't primarily about those structuring motifs, but about the actual doctrines of Lutheranism. But it does cover both, and helps differentiate Lutheran theology form other theologies.