You don't understand Lutheran theology or ethics, then, Paul.
I think I do, actually.
The Law of God condemns us all. No amount of works, penances, or acts of obedience will change the reality that we are sinners that stand condemned, that every one of us has committed fornication in our heart, and nothing but the blood of Jesus, not our works or penances, can wipe that clean. In those sorts of difficult situations, we must sin boldly.
That is not what Luther meant by "sin boldly." His statement to sin boldly is one of the most oft-misinterpreted remarks he made. In no sense did Luther intend to grant to people a license to sin free from ecclesiastical criticism or condemnation.
"Sin boldly" is a statement of the Lutheran-Augustinian idea of unworthiness before God, which does apparently stand in contrast to the Orthodox or Wesleyan idea idea of theosis or entire sanctification. However if one reads the texts in greater detail, it becomes clear that Martin Luther was merely referring to the inevitability of further sin, not celebrating it, and certainly not encouraging it.
A compassionate pastor would understand this and not hold people to an inhuman standard.
Asking people to be married as a prerequisite to having sexual intercourse is not an "inhuman standard," it is rather the normal requirement across almost all Christian denominations, including, until very recently, all of Lutheranism.
It is grossly inappropriate to accuse the Orthodox Church of a lack of compassion or of holding people to an inhuman standard simply because we follow the same standards as the RCC, the LCMS, the SBC and most other Christian denominations concerning fornication and adultery.
We do not communicate unrepentent sinners. If you have sex outside of wedlock, that is sin.
Also, be advised, because I don't want anyone getting into any trouble in this debate: it is against the rules of CF.com to promote either premarital sex or the acceptance of premarital sex.
The Eucharist being poison for sinners goes against our theology. We all come to Christ as unworthy sinners.
That is only partially correct. Whereas it is true that Luther enjoined the Eucharist on the laity as a means of providing healing from sin, and did not embrace the same extremely strict approach to the Eucharist that the Orthodox follow (which is stricter than the RC approach in some respects), he did not envisage the Eucharist being given to people intentionally and unrepentently engaging in active sin.
It is for this reason the LCMS has not just a closed communion, but also, many LCMS parishes practice confession. Lutheranism retained auricular confession, and some Lutheran theologians appear to regard it as a sacrament, or if not a sacrament, than as a very important sacramental act.
My pastor explained it this way to me: Lutherans do not preach cheap grace. It's the other churches, the ones that say that all is needed is some acts of prefect contrition or confession to set you right with God, that have the problem.
The Orthodox Church also does not practice "cheap grace," and I find the insinuation that we do, deeply offensive.
People who are directly and unrepentently disobeying our Lord by engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage, or homosexual relations, or adultery, or incest, cannot partake of the Eucharist in most churches, including the Orthodox.
It makes light of sin to say the human will somehow add something to salvation by works. Justification before God is by grace alone, and not works, so that no one should boast.
The Orthodox Church regards Sola Fide as an error, based on the epistle of St. James.
We also do not believe in salvation by forensic justification.
We believe in salvation by deification, or theosis. Our Lord said "Be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." St. James said "Faith without works is dead."
However, even from a Protestant Sola Fide perspective, the continuation of the faithful in severe, entrenched states of sinful living is regarded as a lack of a living faith, which is why nearly all Protestants (even most laity in the mainline churches, which are largely elderly parishioners whose views are often far more traditional than those of their own clergy) reject such behavior as unacceptable.
The Orthodox do not take a forensic view towards sin. We regard sin as a disease, and the church is a hospital for the treatment of this disease. However, you can't treat people who refuse treatment.
For us to welcome into our communion a couple who were in an unrepentent state of fornication and who refused to embrace marriage would be equivalent to a drug rehab center admitting a patient who brought with him his suppy of methamphetamines and continued to use them at his customary dosage while ostensibly undergoing treatment.
The idea is frankly preposterous. Just as we would not regard a rehab center that correctly refused to allow such behavior as lacking compassion, or holding people to an "inhuman standard," we can likewise say that any Orthodox Church that allowed its members to continue to unrepentently indulge and wallow in the very depths of sin without any repentence, remorse, contrition or desire to change is guilty of malpractice.
A drug rehab center that encouraged its patients to do drugs would quickly go out of business. A hospital which refused to provide medicine but instead encouraged its patients to embrace their diseases would wuickly go out of business.
People come to church for healing, and many parishes of the mainline Protestant churches are shrinking away owing to having lost the confidence of their flock, their patients, if you will. A small number, located primarily in urban areas, have managed to carve out a niche by redefining sin in light of various political issues related to the environment or social justice (however, of these, only the post-Christian or non-Christian Unitarian Universalists have been completely successful at it and growing their membership on a denominational level).
