Lutheran Practices

I will grant you that Luther included Confession in the Sacraments in his early writings, but later he reversed this understanding and narrowed it down to two - Baptism and Eucharist. He had a great deal of respect for Confession and Absolution, but in the end he couldn't call it a Sacrament, even though he may have wanted to.

Ok...well, if I'm wrong then every Lutheran denomination in the US that I know of is too.

Click to expand...

This is the disgusting infection in Lutheranism that can not be tolerated. This is yet another reason why Lutheranism is suffering a slow death.

What I offered is from our Book of Concord which is what defines our interpretaion of scripture.

Its also interesting to note that Luther in his Small Catechism speaks only of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar. And in the Large Catechism only calls Baptism and Eucharist Sacraments.

Click to expand...

So student, how do you explain this below?????

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#confession

This is Luther:

"I will let no one take away private confession and would not exchange it for all the wealth of the world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me."

"I know the devil well. If you had known him as well as I, you would not have thrown private confession so quickly to the wind."

"We keep this method that a penitent relates certain sins that bother him the most. Even if thousands and thousands of worlds belonged to me, I would lose everything rather than give up the smallest part of confession in the church.

Q

I will grant you that Luther included Confession in the Sacraments in his early writings, but later he reversed this understanding and narrowed it down to two - Baptism and Eucharist. He had a great deal of respect for Confession and Absolution, but in the end he couldn't call it a Sacrament, even though he may have wanted to.

Click to expand...

And you completely misinterpret Luthers reason and that by the definition offered, it did not fit as Baptism and the Eucharist yet still remained sacramental.

Further if you care to look at our Confessions at all, you will see that the Confessors allow, by definition more than 3 sacraments. If you would bother to look.

Q

SemStudent08 said:

Ok, found a link on what the ELCA says should be done with left over elements.

http://www.elca.org/dcm/worship/faq/worship_space/lights_elements.html

Click to expand...

That is an interesting article.

Qoheleth said:

This is the disgusting infection in Lutheranism that can not be tolerated. This is yet another reason why Lutheranism is suffering a slow death.

Click to expand...

Wow...way to alienate your audience. Thanks for calling my church and the churches of most of the members here in TCCL infected.

Qoheleth said:

What I offered is from our Book of Concord which is what defines our interpretaion of scripture.

Click to expand...

Hey, wow...what I offered was from the same source...however, I offered quotes from the sections written by Luther, you quoted the Apology...written by Melanchthon. Not that there is anything wrong with Melanchthon, but hey...we call ourselves LUTHERans, right?

Qoheleth said:

So student, how do you explain this below?????

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#confession

Click to expand...

Luther took Confession very seriously. But if you will note, not once in the Small Catechism (or the Large Catechism either) does he refer to Confession as a Sacrament. Whereas the titles of the very sections he wrote on Baptism and Eucharist are "The SACRAMENT of Baptism" and "The SACRAMENT of the Altar."

Qoheleth said:

This is Luther:

"I will let no one take away private confession and would not exchange it for all the wealth of the world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me."

"I know the devil well. If you had known him as well as I, you would not have thrown private confession so quickly to the wind."

"We keep this method that a penitent relates certain sins that bother him the most. Even if thousands and thousands of worlds belonged to me, I would lose everything rather than give up the smallest part of confession in the church.

Q

Click to expand...

Once again, Luther had a great deal of respect for Confession. But it is only in "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church" that he refers to it as a Sacrament, one of his early writings. He later clarifies this and states that there are only TWO Sacraments. I've already shared one such quote of Luther's - "We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." Found here.

Qoheleth said:

And you completely misinterpret Luthers reason and that by the definition offered, it did not fit as Baptism and the Eucharist yet still remained sacramental.

Further if you care to look at our Confessions at all, you will see that the Confessors allow, by definition more than 3 sacraments. If you would bother to look.

Q

Click to expand...

Thanks for dismissing my reading and understanding of the Book of Concord. That always makes me feel good. I understand that you are reffering to elsewhere in the Apology where Melanchthon says that in a cerain way ordination is also a Sacrament.

"rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added." On this basis Melanchthon counts baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution among the sacraments and is willing to consider ordination a sacrament. Then Melanchthon adds, "Ultimately, if we should list as sacraments all the things that have God's command and a promise added to them, then why not prayer, which can most truly be called a sacrament? It has both the command of God and many promises. If it were placed among the sacraments and thus given, so to speak, a more exalted position, this would move men to pray."

Once again, this is Melanchthon, I'm not sure how he got by Luther with this, because Luther quite clearly states that a Sacrament involves a physical element. Luther often reffered to Augustine's axiom ("The sacraments are the visible word") in this understanding as God working through physical elements (Water, Bread & Wine).

The great Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) writes: “Our teachers have publicly professed in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession that they do not greatly wrangle about the term “sacrament” or about the number of sacraments, since this term is not found in Scripture. It was also understood and defined in various ways by the ancients, at times in a wider, at other times in a narrower sense. This only must be preserved, that those things which have a command and have promises of God in Scripture, whether with special rites or without them, are retained and are treated and used as they are taught in the Word of God, regardless whether they are called sacraments or not.”

“In the second place, that those rites which have an explicit command of God in Scripture, and added to them the clear promise of grace which peculiar to the New Testament, are carefully distinguished from other matters which indeed have a command of God but do not have specific and divinely instituted rites. They also have a promise, but not the promise that through them the gratuitous reconciliation is bestowed and sealed.”

“In the third place, also the rites which have explicit command and clear promise of grace in the Scripture of the New Testament, but were either received from the fathers or instituted by other men, are to be distinguished from those about which we have just spoken.”

“In the fourth place, that a distinction be preserved between the promise of grace, which offers and bestows on believers the benefits of redemption, promised in the Gospel, solely and only through the Word, and that same promise when it is clothed in rites or ceremonies divinely instituted in the Word of God.”

“If in this manner the true teaching and the necessary distinction about the matters themselves were established from the teaching of Scripture, it would afterward be possible to reach agreement without great difficulty on the term, and on the number of sacraments, if the contentions concerning unwritten terms had been removed.”

“But when confusion and corruption is sought through the designation and number of sacraments, then it is no longer a strife about words, but a necessary contest about the matters themselves. And it is vain, yes it is deceitful and destructive, to attempt a reconciliation about terms which is connected with danger to and corruption of the matters themselves” [Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II. translated by Fred Kramer (St. Louis Concordia Publishing House, 1978) p. 21-22]

Chemnitz rejected the idea that ordination is a sacrament like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: “Now the ministry of the Word and sacraments has divine promises, and the prayer at ordination rests on these, but these promises are not tied to the rite of imposition of hands, about which there is neither a command of Christ nor such promise as there is about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This reminder must be added, because the papalists contend that ordination is truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, just as are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper" [Ibid. p. 695].

Luther put it more strongly: “Ordination – Of this sacrament the church of Christ knows nothing; it is an invention of the church of the pope. Not only is there nowhere any promise of grace attached to it, but there is not a single word said about it in the whole New Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a sacrament of God something that cannot be proved to have been instituted by God. I do not hold that this rite, which has been observed for so many centuries, should be condemned; but in sacred things I am opposed to the invention of human fictions. And it is not right to give out as divinely instituted what was not divinely instituted, lest we become a laughingstock to our opponents. We ought to see every article of faith of which we boast is certain pure, and based on clear passages of Scripture. But we are utterly unable to do that in the case of the sacrament under consideration” [Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 36, p. 106-107].

Although for a time during the Reformation some Lutherans called absolution a sacrament, the term ultimately was reserved in Lutheran circles for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We operate with this definition: “A sacrament is a sacred rite, instituted by Christ, in which an earthly element is used together with God’s Word, as a means of offering, giving, and sealing to us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.” Only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper fit that definition. To speak of other things as sacraments would only cause confusion and could ultimately lead to false doctrine.

Wow...way to alienate your audience. Thanks for calling my church and the churches of most of the members here in TCCL infected.

Click to expand...

What is alien is your intepretation and any others who decide to dismiss this or that of our Confessions.

Semstudent said:

Hey, wow...what I offered was from the same source...however, I offered quotes from the sections written by Luther, you quoted the Apology...written by Melanchthon. Not that there is anything wrong with Melanchthon, but hey...we call ourselves LUTHERans, right?

Click to expand...

You completely show your ignorance. So, Semstudent here decides what is and what is not Lutheran. I suppose you believe that our Confessions are not even necessary. You cant pick and choose student.


4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )

Please refute this as being part of our faith. Tell us all that this was a mistake and or a lie. Let us all know what we should subscribe to and not subscribe to in the Confessions and then feel rested in the fact that it is people like you who are the sickness infecting the Lutheran church.

Sem said:

Thanks for dismissing my reading and understanding of the Book of Concord. That always makes me feel good. I understand that you are reffering to elsewhere in the Apology where Melanchthon says that in a cerain way ordination is also a Sacrament.

Click to expand...

You dismiss yourself with the garbage you offer.

Sem said:

Once again, this is Melanchthon, I'm not sure how he got by Luther with this, because Luther quite clearly states that a Sacrament involves a physical element. Luther often reffered to Augustine's axiom ("The sacraments are the visible word") in this understanding as God working through physical elements (Water, Bread & Wine).

Click to expand...

Once again this Student tells us that he believes parts of our Confessions should not be there. Unreal.

We operate with this definition: “A sacrament is a sacred rite, instituted by Christ, in which an earthly element is used together with God’s Word, as a means of offering, giving, and sealing to us the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.” Only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper fit that definition. To speak of other things as sacraments would only cause confusion and could ultimately lead to false doctrine.

Click to expand...

The pulse slows, breathing is shallow, the pupils become fixed and dialated...The disease has taken its course.

Q

Semstudent, if you do a little more digging you will find that there is more than one definition for "sacrament"...even the LCMS website infers this when it discusses the number of sacraments.

No confessional Lutheran would deny that Confession / Absolution is a sacrament. Study a little further and you'll see this. Read Sasse's Word and Sacrament, Preaching and the Lord's Supper, July 1956. He makes the case that the confessions do not limit the number of the sacraments nor establish a definition of the nature of the sacraments--which is in keeping with the early church.

The pulse slows, breathing is shallow, the pupils become fixed and dialated...The disease has taken its course.

Click to expand...

Just to be fair, I'm sure there were many a Catholics who felt the same way about the whole "we don't need to pay indulgences" thing. Again, just to be fair.

Ok, please allow me to navigate through all of your underhanded insults towards my intelligence and understanding and respond to the ONLY argument you have to offer (even after I handed you one on a platter with regards to what Luther says in "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church").

Qoheleth said:

4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. (Apology Art. XIII [VIII] )

Click to expand...

Once again, you cite Melanchthon's Apology. And once again let me refer you to Luther's Large Catechism at the VERY BEGINNING of his explanation to Baptism and Eucharist we find "We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." (Once again, you can find this here) I'm not picking and choosing...I'm trying to reconcile Luther vs Melanchthon on this, and I'm sorry, when Luther and Melanchthon differ I will side with LUTHER. Anyone who has studied Luther's works and Melanchthon's will identify that Luther is the one who stands firm and Melanchthon (esp. in later writings) will soften his language when in debate with other theologians (ie Calvin).

Read ANY Lutheran Systematic Theology in regards to the Sacraments and you will find that there are 3 things to the Lutheran understanding of Sacraments.
A - Instrument of God's Grace
B - Scriptural basis (Implemented by Christ specifically)
C - The use of an "earthly element"
Luther recognizes that there are only TWO Sacraments based on this definition - Baptism and Eucharist. You are using ONE quote from Melanchthon to try and refute what Luther himself and Lutheran theologians since Luther say about the Sacraments. I am not the one picking and choosing here, I have Luther's (and Lutheran theologians since Luther) well developed systematic theology on this issue...

Now, I am leaving these forums for a while. This is suposed to be a place free of insults and personal attacks. But that has not been the case in this discussion. I will come back and will gladly take this discussion back up with you after a "cooling down" period for myself (no more than a day, don't worry), I don't want to resort to insulting others and I am currently angry enough that the temptation to do so would be too great if I were to stick around right now. In the mean time, read Luther's Large Catechism. I'll be back...

Luthers Rose said:

Semstudent, if you do a little more digging you will find that there is more than one definition for "sacrament"...even the LCMS website infers this when it discusses the number of sacraments.

No confessional Lutheran would deny that Confession / Absolution is a sacrament. Study a little further and you'll see this. Read Sasse's Word and Sacrament, Preaching and the Lord's Supper, July 1956. He makes the case that the confessions do not limit the number of the sacraments nor establish a definition of the nature of the sacraments--which is in keeping with the early church.

Click to expand...

From the LCMS website -
L. The no. of sacraments depends either on arbitrary listing or on definition of “sacrament.” RCs list 7 sacraments, without defining “sacrament.” Ap XII 41: “Absolution* may properly be called a sacrament of penitence”; this must be understood in the sense of LC IV 74: “Baptism … comprehends also the 3d sacrament, formerly called Penance, which is really nothing else than Baptism.” “If we define sacraments as 'rites which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added,' we can easily determine which are sacraments in the strict sense.… The genuine sacraments, therefore, are Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution (which is the sacrament of penitence).… If ordination is interpreted this way, we shall not object either to calling the laying on of hands a sacrament.… Ultimately, if we should list as sacraments all the things that have God's command and a promise added to them, then why not prayer, which can most truly be called a sacrament?” (Ap XIII 3, 4, 12, 16). Luther: “A sacrament must have 2 things for sure: God's Word and the instituted external sign [or means, or element; Ger. Zeichen]; these we find only in the 2 sacraments [Baptism and Communion].” (WA 11, 454) ES

Sorry if I go by the definition of Sacrament and not just on arbitrary listing, to use the language of this exerpt.

I know, I know, I'm not gone yet, but I will be soon. Confession / Absolution is a RITE, but since it does not fulfill Luther's defintion of a Sacrament (once again, "earthly element," but also its Implmentation by Christ) it is not a Sacrament. Luther was quite good about talking about the SACRAMENT of Baptism and the SACRAMENT of the Altar, and if he wanted to he could have easily spoken of the SACRAMENT of Confession, but he doesn't!!! I am not denying that Luther thought a great deal of Confession / Absolution, but in the end, though he may have wanted to, he could not call it a Sacrament. Hence his refferal to it as a Sacrament in early writings, but his reversal of that in later writings.

Thats it, I'm off for real this time...be back in a day or so....

SEM said:

Once again, you cite Melanchthon's Apology. And once again let me refer you to Luther's Large Catechism at the VERY BEGINNING of his explanation to Baptism and Eucharist we find "We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ." (Once again, you can find this here) I'm not picking and choosing...I'm trying to reconcile Luther vs Melanchthon on this, and I'm sorry, when Luther and Melanchthon differ I will side with LUTHER. Anyone who has studied Luther's works and Melanchthon's will identify that Luther is the one who stands firm and Melanchthon (esp. in later writings) will soften his language when in debate with other theologians (ie Calvin).

Read ANY Lutheran Systematic Theology in regards to the Sacraments and you will find that there are 3 things to the Lutheran understanding of Sacraments.
A - Instrument of God's Grace
B - Scriptural basis (Implemented by Christ specifically)
C - The use of an "earthly element"
Luther recognizes that there are only TWO Sacraments based on this definition - Baptism and Eucharist. You are using ONE quote from Melanchthon to try and refute what Luther himself and Lutheran theologians since Luther say about the Sacraments. I am not the one picking and choosing here, I have Luther's (and Lutheran theologians since Luther) well developed systematic theology on this issue...

Now, I am leaving these forums for a while. This is suposed to be a place free of insults and personal attacks. But that has not been the case in this discussion. I will come back and will gladly take this discussion back up with you after a "cooling down" period for myself (no more than a day, don't worry), I don't want to resort to insulting others and I am currently angry enough that the temptation to do so would be too great if I were to stick around right now. In the mean time, read Luther's Large Catechism. I'll be back...

Click to expand...

1] Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine. (SA Art. VIII)

Luther, even here says that it is "ordained" by Christ. Do you have a problem with that. No Melanchthon here.

Melanchthon was Luthers close-friend and communicated daily the progress of the Confession. Did you ever read anything of Luther condemning the Augsburg Confession? NO, Luther approved the Confession wholeheartedly.

You can not pick and choose, in the Confessions, what you believe to be correct.

Do you understand this or not. What kind of instructors do you have.

Fine, youre getting upset. You need to learn a lesson about what it means to subscribe (quia) to the Confessions as that which defines the Faith.

Where do you get off dismissing the Apology in any Article. Who made you the editor in chief. This is extreme arrogance. Are you kidding or something.

Q

SemStudent08 said:

Sorry if I go by the definition of Sacrament and not just on arbitrary listing, to use the language of this exerpt.

Click to expand...

It is true Semstudent that if you define a sacrament as requiring 3 things:

1) instituted by Christ
2) Word
3) Physical means

then there are two in the Lutheran church. BUT...our confessions clearly speak of Confession as a Sacrament...yet we will all agree that it offers no "physical means". So...if the confessions say it is a sacrament what does this mean...

1) there is more than one legitimate definition for sacrament?
2) the Confessions are wrong.

If your answer is 2) then maybe you might be happier as a Presbyterian minister. If your answer is 1) then you would be right in line with a group of orthodox Lutheran pastors I follow in a listserv...just yesterday one commented that no pastor in his right mind would deny that Confession is a sacrament.

Watch out for those systematic theology books, Semstudent. In my own studies (at one time I was pursuing a lay ministry degree) I found they all error in one way or another and tend to reflect the thoughts of the age and not always the thoughts of the Church through the ages.

Now I challenge you...take this discussion back to your professors and see what they say about the sacraments, their definition and their number. Then let us know what they say. I need to know whether or not I have to go buy a sympathy card.....R

Luthers Rose said:

It is true Semstudent that if you define a sacrament as requiring 3 things:

1) instituted by Christ
2) Word
3) Physical means

then there are two in the Lutheran church. BUT...our confessions clearly speak of Confession as a Sacrament...yet we will all agree that it offers no "physical means". So...if the confessions say it is a sacrament what does this mean...

1) there is more than one legitimate definition for sacrament?
2) the Confessions are wrong.

If your answer is 2) then maybe you might be happier as a Presbyterian minister. If your answer is 1) then you would be right in line with a group of orthodox Lutheran pastors I follow in a listserv...just yesterday one commented that no pastor in his right mind would deny that Confession is a sacrament.

Watch out for those systematic theology books, Semstudent. In my own studies (at one time I was pursuing a lay ministry degree) I found they all error in one way or another and tend to reflect the thoughts of the age and not always the thoughts of the Church through the ages.

Now I challenge you...take this discussion back to your professors and see what they say about the sacraments, their definition and their number. Then let us know what they say. I need to know whether or not I have to go buy a sympathy card.....R

Click to expand...

Make sure you pass the sympathy card around. I want to sign it too.

Wow.

First the higher-critics started throwing out Paul because he wasn't Jesus. Now they're throwing out Melancthon because he's not Luther. Anything goes with these people.

LUTHERANS confess the Book of Concord. All of it. To confess something less than the Book of Concord is to remove yourself from Lutheranism. The Book of Concord says Confession & Absolution is a sacrament (by one definition), and thus is it. If you're Lutheran. If you're not, it's really easy to deny it. And apparently similarly easy to get into certain seminaries that bear the name Lutheran.

CrossWiseMag said:

Wow.

First the higher-critics started throwing out Paul because he wasn't Jesus. Now they're throwing out Melancthon because he's not Luther. Anything goes with these people.

LUTHERANS confess the Book of Concord. All of it. To confess something less than the Book of Concord is to remove yourself from Lutheranism. The Book of Concord says Confession & Absolution is a sacrament (by one definition), and thus is it. If you're Lutheran. If you're not, it's really easy to deny it. And apparently similarly easy to get into certain seminaries that bear the name Lutheran.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of people will throw out some of Melanchthon based on his allegiances after Luther died and that he re-wrote some of the confessions to be in line with his new ideals. So the point then is the Abridged BOC or Unabridged BOC?

You know, this is just an off-hand observation, but...

For a Church founded on the basis of reformation, there seems to be a lack of want to see if the current church needs reforming today. I'm not saying it absolutely does, but I'm also not saying it absolutely does not.

And why, pray tell, does every little issue that isn't "Jesus rose from the dead and saves us all by His Grace" have to be so church-dividing? Why can't we get past the smaller tenets and strive to be as one, as Jesus and the Father are one (as her Jesus' goodbye-prayer in the Gospel of John)?

Why do we focus so much on differences that, in reality, don't matter... since we're either saved by the free Grace of God or we're not saved at all (whether we think there are 2 or 3 or 8000 Sacraments)?

AngelusSax said:

You know, this is just an off-hand observation, but...

For a Church founded on the basis of reformation, there seems to be a lack of want to see if the current church needs reforming today. I'm not saying it absolutely does, but I'm also not saying it absolutely does not.

And why, pray tell, does every little issue that isn't "Jesus rose from the dead and saves us all by His Grace" have to be so church-dividing? Why can't we get past the smaller tenets and strive to be as one, as Jesus and the Father are one (as her Jesus' goodbye-prayer in the Gospel of John)?

Why do we focus so much on differences that, in reality, don't matter... since we're either saved by the free Grace of God or we're not saved at all (whether we think there are 2 or 3 or 8000 Sacraments)?

Click to expand...

I think that just because you consider them small tenets doesn't mean that they are so to anyone else. You think it a small matter on women's ordination whereas I do not. I abide by the word of God first and by the confessions as the true exposition of the word. I don't just give lip service to the confessions but I do give them more weight than you do. So this is why we have church division. That which consider a minor is a major to someone else. These differences do matter to many of us. If we are not in doctrinal unity on these issues it can bring judgement on us in the sacraments.

To us you would sacrifice some of the truth to gain unity. We would sacrifice none because that is not what Christ would have us do. I know it sounds like a "my way or the highway" motto, but until Christ comes that is what I will hold to.

Qoheleth said:

Mass is celebrated 7 days a week at my parish.

Q

Click to expand...

You gotta tell me where I can find one of these parishes. We only have Sunday and Wednesday