I want to be a Confessional Lutheran BUT...

[jinc1019]

You believe that baptism forgives sins, yet you just don't believe it forgives babies either because you don't think they are sinful? If they weren't sinful, they wouldn't die because the wages of sin is death.

I didn't say they were sinful. I said they don't have the sin of Adam imputed on them. They are not guilty because Adam was guilty, but their natures are corrupted and causes them to sin. But do 10 day old babies sin? No. How can they? It's completely illogical.

 

[jinc1019]

I seriously think you need to discuss things with a Lutheran pastor in real life. You claim to believe a lot of Lutheran beliefs but the core ones that are important you bash.

I don't "bash" them...I said I don't believe them. You really aren't contributing much to this discussion.

 

[LilLamb219]

I don't "bash" them...I said I don't believe them. You really aren't contributing much to this discussion.

Suggesting someone speaks to a Lutheran pastor is actually a good contribution!

You've come in here as a guest telling us you'd like to be Lutheran but don't believe a LOT of what Lutherans believe despite your claims, then you go on to try to debate your side which is against forum rules. Just sayin'.

 

[jinc1019]

Suggesting someone speaks to a Lutheran pastor is actually a good contribution!

You've come in here as a guest telling us you'd like to be Lutheran but don't believe a LOT of what Lutherans believe despite your claims, then you go on to try to debate your side which is against forum rules. Just sayin'.

I wasn't referring the "talk to a pastor" comment...which I am sure you already know.

Secondly, I am not a "guest," I am a user just like you. I am not a Lutheran, but that doesn't have anything to do with "forum rules." Maybe you are right that there is some forum rule about defending one's belief on a theological topic, but if there is, that's a stupid rule.

Thirdly, it's not "A LOT." You keep making this claim over and over again but based on what? What is "A LOT." I listed probably 5 things...and only 2 of them are really serious departures from Luther. How is that a lot? I basically agree with the overwhelming majority of the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Augsburg Confession. If you are going to make statements like that, you have to back it up with something. Every few hours you come on and post one sentence that says nothing other than "You aren't a Lutheran." "You hardly believe anything we believe." "Why don't you tell us what you do agree with because it doesn't seem like you agree with anything." It doesn't add anything to conversation at all.

Further, I am not trying to argue with anyone about the theological issues! I didn't intend to do that at all. My OP, which you may or may not have actually read, is clear that I wasn't here to argue the REASONS why I believe what I do...only ask if my beliefs allowed me to be Lutheran. According to you, no. You seem to suggest that a Lutheran, to be called a Lutheran, must agree with everything in the confession....if that's true, then your church is in trouble because I doubt most Lutherans, even confessional ones, agree with every single sentence in the Book of Concord.

So tell me, do you support the idea that the Pope is THE "Anti-Christ" of the Book of Revelation? Do you believe that you have NO RIGHT to question your government? Do you believe that the earth was created LITERALLY in six 24 hour days? Many Lutherans I am sure disagree with all or at least one of those statements.

 

[LilLamb219]

You ARE a guest here in the Lutheran forum.

We have a Statement of Faith stickied at the top for all to read. Asking a question here is fine, but then to continue arguing with Lutheran members is not fine because that can be construed as teaching. Are you interested in learning about what Lutherans believe or did you come here to say you were going to hold on to some of your non-Lutheran beliefs (not all are non-Lutheran but you HAVE come in trying to tell us how wrong we are on some points) and that we have to deal with it?

I wasn't referring the "talk to a pastor" comment...which I am sure you already know.

Secondly, I am not a "guest," I am a user just like you. I am not a Lutheran, but that doesn't have anything to do with "forum rules." Maybe you are right that there is some forum rule about defending one's belief on a theological topic, but if there is, that's a stupid rule.

Thirdly, it's not "A LOT." You keep making this claim over and over again but based on what? What is "A LOT." I listed probably 5 things...and only 2 of them are really serious departures from Luther. How is that a lot? I basically agree with the overwhelming majority of the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Augsburg Confession. If you are going to make statements like that, you have to back it up with something. Every few hours you come on and post one sentence that says nothing other than "You aren't a Lutheran." "You hardly believe anything we believe." "Why don't you tell us what you do agree with because it doesn't seem like you agree with anything." It doesn't add anything to conversation at all.

Further, I am not trying to argue with anyone about the theological issues! I didn't intend to do that at all. My OP, which you may or may not have actually read, is clear that I wasn't here to argue the REASONS why I believe what I do...only ask if my beliefs allowed me to be Lutheran. According to you, no. You seem to suggest that a Lutheran, to be called a Lutheran, must agree with everything in the confession....if that's true, then your church is in trouble because I doubt most Lutherans, even confessional ones, agree with every single sentence in the Book of Concord.

So tell me, do you support the idea that the Pope is THE "Anti-Christ" of the Book of Revelation? Do you believe that you have NO RIGHT to question your government? Do you believe that the earth was created LITERALLY in six 24 hour days? Many Lutherans I am sure disagree with all or at least one of those statements.

 

[jinc1019]

You ARE a guest here in the Lutheran forum.

We have a Statement of Faith stickied at the top for all to read. Asking a question here is fine, but then to continue arguing with Lutheran members is not fine because that can be construed as teaching. Are you interested in learning about what Lutherans believe or did you come here to say you were going to hold on to some of your non-Lutheran beliefs (not all are non-Lutheran but you HAVE come in trying to tell us how wrong we are on some points) and that we have to deal with it?

Once again...You have plenty of accusations but you fail to back up any of them with facts. If you read the thread from the very beginning, you will clearly see that I did NOT come here to teach anything. My question had nothing to do with "teaching." I also NEVER asked anyone to "teach me" the Lutheran position on anything since I already know what it is. I asked a question about becoming Lutheran despite my beliefs. Some posters felt the need to ask me about one belief I had or another and I responded to them.

Further, you never answered my questions. If you are going to criticize me then you should answer my questions. Do you believe that the pope is THE Anti-Christ of the Book of Revelation? Do you believe that the earth and all of creation held within was made in 6 literal 24 hour days? Do you believe that you must be absolutely submissive to the government? Including horrific, racist, dangerous, and evil ones? Do you believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States were wrong to rebel against the King of England? If you do believe these things, do you believe a majority of Lutherans do? Do you know any Lutherans personally who disagree with one or all of these points? Luther taught all of those things and they all appear in the Confessions. You conveniently decided to ignore them.

 

[LilLamb219]

You were told a month ago in the subforum to talk things over with a Lutheran pastor in real life...yet, it looks like you chose not to do so.

If I were to answer any of your questions, we both know you would come back to try to tell me how wrong I was on some points...which is against forum rules for you to do so. Why would I set you up like that?

Once again...You have plenty of accusations but you fail to back up any of them with facts. If you read the thread from the very beginning, you will clearly see that I did NOT come here to teach anything. My question had nothing to do with "teaching." I also NEVER asked anyone to "teach me" the Lutheran position on anything since I already know what it is. I asked a question about becoming Lutheran despite my beliefs. Some posters felt the need to ask me about one belief I had or another and I responded to them.

Further, you never answered my questions. If you are going to criticize me then you should answer my questions. Do you believe that the pope is THE Anti-Christ of the Book of Revelation? Do you believe that the earth and all of creation held within was made in 6 literal 24 hour days? Do you believe that you must be absolutely submissive to the government? Including horrific, racist, dangerous, and evil ones? Do you believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States were wrong to rebel against the King of England? If you do believe these things, do you believe a majority of Lutherans do? Do you know any Lutherans personally who disagree with one or all of these points? Luther taught all of those things and they all appear in the Confessions. You conveniently decided to ignore them.

 

[Luther073082]

Thank you for posting!

Addressing your points in order...
1. and 2.) I agree this is a big problem. I won't argue theologically with you over the points you made because this really isn't the place for it and I don't have time to treat the issue properly. However, I would argue that my position on original sin is really no different that the position the Eastern Orthodox Church has on it. You will find after studying church history that only Western Churches, which trace their theological lineage back through Augustine, tend to support this view of original sin.

Further, I would suggest you read what many early Christians believed about baptism as there was a wide array of beliefs on the issue. I am not saying regeneration does NOT occur. I do NOT believe baptism is a purely symbolic event. However, I do believe that it is BOTH a sacrament which proclaims ones faith in Jesus and is done when faith is attained AS WELL AS a sacrament which is grace-filled and forgives sin. I believe that is what the earliest Christians believed. If the Apostles taught, as you suggest, that all children are born guilty of Adam's personal sin and are destined for hell without baptism (since they also are too young to have faith), then why is it that in many parts of the ancient Christian world, people waited until they were older (sometimes very old) to get baptized? The reason they did so was because many Christian schools of thought believed that it was very difficult, if not impossible, for mortal sins to be forgiven after baptism. Thus, they waited. Tertullian, for instance, suggested people wait until they get married, that way any youthful sexual "indiscretions" would be forgiven.

And yet the Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes infants. I can't say I'm fully familiar with their stance on original sin, but I can assure you they baptize infants as a regular practice.

 

[jinc1019]

You were told a month ago in the subforum to talk things over with a Lutheran pastor in real life...yet, it looks like you chose not to do so.

If I were to answer any of your questions, we both know you would come back to try to tell me how wrong I was on some points...which is against forum rules for you to do so. Why would I set you up like that?

Once again...You won't answer the questions. I won't tell you that you are wrong...I just have a sneaking suspicion that MANY Lutherans don't agree with all of those statements! In other words, you are applying a standard to me that you won't even apply to yourself. Perhaps I am wrong...maybe you do believe in every one of those things...and maybe every good Lutheran you know agrees...I wont presume to speak for you. But, I highly doubt that most Lutherans agree with ALL of those statements. I am not even sure you agree with all of them.

 

[jinc1019]

And yet the Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes infants. I can't say I'm fully familiar with their stance on original sin, but I can assure you they baptize infants as a regular practice.

Yes they do! Very correct. However, I doubt very highly you believe that just because the EO believes something, it is true.

With that said, they do not believein Luther's understanding of original sin.

Here is a good introduction to their beliefs on original sin: Original sin - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Luther073082]

3. Your third point is logically flawed because it assumes free will and predestination cannot occur simultaneously. There is no reason, in my view, why God cannot put us in positions in life where He knows we will, by our own free will, CHOOSE faith. It's like a mother setting up her son with the PERFECT woman for him by having them meet seemingly by chance...She isn't actually forcing them to fall in love or even to date each other...but the mother knows that the two are perfect for each other and that if given the right situation, they will fall for one another. Obviously it is more powerful with God, but you get the point.

Still cooperating with God to choose him. In the instance the son is cooperating with her plan by deciding to love this woman.

God may use situations to strengthen your faith or even I suppose to push you to stop rejecting your faith or even to expose you to the gospel so that your faith may be understood and used. But if you decide "I will believe in this" or "I will have faith in this" then you are cooperating with God to save you.

4. Since we both struggle with this, I wonder how you feel you can belong to a confessional church which teaches it despite the fact that you disagree? I am not saying this in a confrontational way...I am truly interested to know.

Mostly because I agree on nearly everything else. My disbelief in apostolic succession for example and certain usages of "tradition" would in the end cause far more difficulties if I where to attempt to join either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.

I left a liberal Lutheran church because it was so liberal (nationally, not locally) and I can't see myself attending a liberal church.

And I certainly can't see myself attending a non-sacramental church.

It's really sort of a question of which beliefs would present the greatest difficulty. I could almost go Eastern Orthodox, but the idea that the bishops in council can just decide something and it's automatically true and the related idea of apostolic succession is just something I don't think I could integrate myself into. Same thing with the Roman Catholic church but add to it a pope and it's even worse.

I also think apostolic succession is too inflexible. Based on that doctrine if you have a 100 Roman Catholic's or 100 Eastern Orthodox stranded on an island with all the food and water and resources including bread and grapes for wine, they need but none of them is a priest they are out of luck in terms of sacraments. But if 100 confessional Lutherans are stranded on an island in the same situation, we form our own church, call a pastor through electing him, and we have everything we need for a church and the sacraments.

Now obviously in better situation you want to be part of a more organized church with a pastor who has a seminary education. But 100 lay Lutherans isolated could call a pastor from among their congregation and have sacraments available to them.

5. I suppose you could argue ANYONE who opposes the true teachings of Jesus is an "anti-Christ," although I am not at all comfortable using this term or applying it to anyone (even if they may deserve it!). However, the LC-MS position (as well as WELS and other conservative branches) is that the office of the papacy is THE Anti-Christ, not just "a anti-Christ." That is the whole problem I have with them. Further, they teach it as if it is 100% guaranteed to be accurate and true...when truthfully, they must know it is POSSIBLE they are wrong (at the very least).

I would agree, it is possible that they are wrong. I would say that your views regarding this would probably present the least difficulty in being in a confessional Lutheran church. A lot less difficulties then your views on creation. And far less then your views on Baptism which I would regard as probably the most problematic. But those views would be problematic in probably any sacramental church. The idea of baptism as a sacrament which we receive grace pretty much necessitates the baptism of infants.

 

[jinc1019]

Still cooperating with God to choose him. In the instance the son is cooperating with her plan by deciding to love this woman.

God may use situations to strengthen your faith or even I suppose to push you to stop rejecting your faith or even to expose you to the gospel so that your faith may be understood and used. But if you decide "I will believe in this" or "I will have faith in this" then you are cooperating with God to save you.



Mostly because I agree on nearly everything else. My disbelief in apostolic succession for example and certain usages of "tradition" would in the end cause far more difficulties if I where to attempt to join either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.

I left a liberal Lutheran church because it was so liberal (nationally, not locally) and I can't see myself attending a liberal church.

And I certainly can't see myself attending a non-sacramental church.

It's really sort of a question of which beliefs would present the greatest difficulty. I could almost go Eastern Orthodox, but the idea that the bishops in council can just decide something and it's automatically true and the related idea of apostolic succession is just something I don't think I could integrate myself into. Same thing with the Roman Catholic church but add to it a pope and it's even worse.

I also think apostolic succession is too inflexible. Based on that doctrine if you have a 100 Roman Catholic's or 100 Eastern Orthodox stranded on an island with all the food and water and resources including bread and grapes for wine, they need but none of them is a priest they are out of luck in terms of sacraments. But if 100 confessional Lutherans are stranded on an island in the same situation, we form our own church, call a pastor through electing him, and we have everything we need for a church and the sacraments.

Now obviously in better situation you want to be part of a more organized church with a pastor who has a seminary education. But 100 lay Lutherans isolated could call a pastor from among their congregation and have sacraments available to them.



I would agree, it is possible that they are wrong. I would say that your views regarding this would probably present the least difficulty in being in a confessional Lutheran church. A lot less difficulties then your views on creation. And far less then your views on Baptism which I would regard as probably the most problematic. But those views would be problematic in probably any sacramental church. The idea of baptism as a sacrament which we receive grace pretty much necessitates the baptism of infants.

I appreciate your advice and comments on my problem.

The same reasons you feel uncomfortable joining the EO or RCC seem to be the reasons I feel uncomfortable joining the EO or RCC (along with papal authority/infallibility).

I agree with you that baptism is the biggest problem (along with creation), but even with Creation, I can at least SEE a way where one can believe in 6 literal days of Creation in one sense while also believing in more scientific understandings of creation (like some form of evolution).

 

[DaRev]

Great points. I don't necessarily disagree with you. I do obviously reject your premise about the Lutheran Confessions being completely true, but the rest makes sense.

Then the Lutheran Church is not for you. Why would you want to join a church when you don't believe what that church teaches? Makes no sense.

 

[DaRev]

That's simply not true, Rev, at least not for laymen.

Actually, it is true.

'm still waiting to find out which seminary you graduated from.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Actually, it is true.

'm still waiting to find out which seminary you graduated from.

or who her pastor is, at the very least.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually, it is true.

'm still waiting to find out which seminary you graduated from.

ACTUALLY....I read that in order to be confirmed and become a member in the LC-MS, you do NOT need to subscribe to all of the things you are suggesting. Generally, the Small Catechism appears to be the only confessional item you are required to believe at that time. See the following link for proof: Lutherans: Diverse Thinking in LCMS, lutheran church missouri synod, church missouri synod

 

[jinc1019]

Then the Lutheran Church is not for you. Why would you want to join a church when you don't believe what that church teaches? Makes no sense.

I can certainly understand that position, but put yourself in my shoes then. Other than the denominations like UMC, ELCA, and The Episcopal Church, all of whom allow for some pretty radical Christian positions (such as allowing for abortion), there are no denominations where I am not required to adhere to a whole list of doctrines, some of which I don't agree with. The truth is that the conservative Lutheran churches seem to be closest, even if there are some big problems. There are bigger problems elsewhere.

If you think it "makes no sense" to be Lutheran, what does make sense?

 

[DaRev]

ACTUALLY....I read that in order to be confirmed and become a member in the LC-MS, you do NOT need to subscribe to all of the things you are suggesting. Generally, the Small Catechism appears to be the only confessional item you are required to believe at that time. See the following link for proof: Lutherans: Diverse Thinking in LCMS, lutheran church missouri synod, church missouri synod

The Small Catechism is used as a textbook to teach what the doctrines of the Confessional Lutheran Church are. The teachings of the Small Catechism come directly from Scripture, as do the teachings in the rest of the Confessions. It summarizes what the rest of the Book of Concord teaches on a number of subjects. So, if you "subscribe" to the Small Catechism, you are in fact subscribing to all of the Book of Concord. To say "I only have to "subscribe" to the SC but I don't agree with the other confessions" is a contradiction. To say "I believe the SC but not the other Confessions" is hypocritical.

Membership in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod requires agreement with the doctrines of the Confessional Lutheran Church found in the Book of Concord of 1580. These doctrines are true because they are thoroughly Scriptural. This is and has always been the teaching of the LCMS.

 

[alexnbethmom]

this is taken from lcms.org (the actual LCMS website):

The Lutheran church derives its name from Martin Luther (1483-1546), an Augustinian monk whose posting of the 95 Theses on October 31, 1517, sparked the Reformation. The documents which present what Lutherans believe, teach and confess were assembled and published in 1580 in The Book of Concord. For more than 400 years, these documents have served as a normative statement of the Christian faith as Lutherans confess it. The confessional article of the constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod states that "the Synod and every member of the Synod, accepts without reservation the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice," and all the writings in the Book of Concord as "a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God" (LCMS Constitution II).

doesn't really get a whole lot plainer than that. we accept, WITHOUT RESERVATION, the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God, AND ALL THE WRITINGS IN THE BOOK OF CONCORD.

 

[jinc1019]

The Small Catechism is used as a textbook to teach what the doctrines of the Confessional Lutheran Church are. The teachings of the Small Catechism come directly from Scripture, as do the teachings in the rest of the Confessions. It summarizes what the rest of the Book of Concord teaches on a number of subjects. So, if you "subscribe" to the Small Catechism, you are in fact subscribing to all of the Book of Concord. To say "I only have to "subscribe" to the SC but I don't agree with the other confessions" is a contradiction. To say "I believe the SC but not the other Confessions" is hypocritical.

Membership in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod requires agreement with the doctrines of the Confessional Lutheran Church found in the Book of Concord of 1580. These doctrines are true because they are thoroughly Scriptural. This is and has always been the teaching of the LCMS.

Perhaps I am missing something, but where in the Small Catechism does it say that you must subscribe to the teachings of the rest of the confessions? I don't believe it does. And as I already posted, a reverend in the LC-MS stated clearly that one does NOT need to subscribe to everything in the Book of Concord for membership. You can easily say you accept everything in the Small Catechism without saying you accept everything in the Book of Concord. Nowhere in the Small Catechism that I can see, for instance (and I could be wrong), teaches that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. This is, however, taught in other places in the Book of Concord. So there is a difference in doctrine. The Small Catechism leaves a great deal out. So, unless the Small Catechism says that you must subscribe to the Book of Concord, I don't see how you can make that argument.