Lutheran Questions

[LutheranHawkeye]

Hi Newfound


Lutherans teach that Christs body/blood are in, with, and under the bread/wine. In other words we believe he is literally and truly present unlike most Protestants, but not that the bread and wine are actually transformed into body and blood. In a lot of ways you could look at it as Lutherans consider the bread and wine to be vehicles or hosts.


While most of the Lutheran church bodies have clear stands on political issues, they are generally theologically expressed rather then politically. It's rare if ever you will hear a Lutheran Pastor or someone in the church endorse a candidate or law or some such. But we certainly have clear theological stances on these things.


There is no real headquarters. There are many different Lutheran Church bodies with their own HQ.


Some of the liberal church bodies do. However, traditional Lutheran teachings and conservative Lutheran church bodies do not.


Main differences would be salvation- grace through faith for Lutherans, combination of faith and works/justification for RC; communion (as noted above); prayers to saints which Lutherans do not do; and purgatory...which I suppose also falls under differences in salvation.

How does the body and blood come to be if there is no change in substance...surely you're speaking of a spiritual real presence? Or are you speaking about the body and blood being with the elements? I'm confused!

 

[Lupinus]

Why does an emergency have to occur, then?

I probably didnt phrase my question as well as I should have. I meant; If the emergency is not what causes the sacrament to be valid, why must an emergency be present in order for a lay person to admisnister the sacrament?

It's not so much that an emergency has to occur for it to be valid. It is just that it is something normally set aside for a Pastor, God has made it where anyone can do it but made it to job of a Pastor. So, under normal circumstances a Pastor should do it. We all have the ability though, which is why it can be done by any baptized Christian in an emergency (such as someone death bed and no Pastor is available).

For the Lords Supper I suppose any Christian could do it. But as Baptism is required for salvation and the Lords Supper is not, I don't see any reason a lay person should do so without a Pastors supervision. Someone more versed in such things could probably give a better specific answer.

How does the body and blood come to be if there is no change in substance...surely you're speaking of a spiritual real presence? Or are you speaking about the body and blood being with the elements? I'm confused!

Christs body and blood are undoubtedly truly present, but the bread and wine are not transformed into body and blood (transubstantiation alla the RCC) Lutherans believe in real presence through a sacramental union in with and under. The bread and wine are like your car, you get in it and are present there, but it's only a vehicle carrying you. It does not become you.

 

[DaRev]

So technically any baptised person could consecrate the Eucharist?

Technically, no. While any baptized Christian may baptize, it's not necessary a given that just any baptized Christian can administer the Lord's Supper. The priesthood of believers is not the pastoral office. The priesthood of believers refers to all believers having direct access to God. We need not go through a priest for sacrificial acts. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrificial act but is sacramental. The Office of the Pastoral Ministry was instituted by God to speak and act in the stead of Christ. This is not given to all believers but to the Office. The congregation then calls one to fill that office and carry out the sacramental duties of the Office.

How does the body and blood come to be if there is no change in substance...surely you're speaking of a spiritual real presence? Or are you speaking about the body and blood being with the elements? I'm confused!

It is a mystery. Christ took bread and said "This is My body." He took a cup of wine and said "This is My blood." He didn't offer an explanation of how it becomes, He just said that it is. It's not a "spiritual" presence, but the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Alkhazred]

1)I want to understand. Why do Christians ask God for forgiveness in "Our Father", if their sins were forgiven by the Sacrifice of Jesus?
2)Should Christians (of Lutheran or Calvinist confession) pray to God Father or to Jesus?
3)How do the Lutheran Christians explain Virgin Mary appearances to so many people?
4)Are there any non-Biblical references that the first Judeo-Christians leaded by James or Jude believed in the Resurrection and the Redemtion by the Sacrifice of Jesus?

Thank you.

 

[Edial]

1)I want to understand. Why do Christians ask God for forgiveness in "Our Father", if their sins were forgiven by the Sacrifice of Jesus?

"Our Father" is a (hopefully ) daily prayer that Christians pray.
(I am saying "daily" because we are asking for "daily bread".
In it we ask for forgiveness for our daily tresspasses. That forgiveness is given to us on a measure of us forgiving others that tesspassed against us.
This forgiveness is not unto salvation. Forgiveness unto salvation was done once and for all.

2)Should Christians (of Lutheran or Calvinist confession) pray to God Father or to Jesus?

Either One.

3)How do the Lutheran Christians explain Virgin Mary appearances to so many people?

Cannot speak "officially" for the Lutherandom , but in my opinion these visions are either scams, or coming not from God.

4)Are there any non-Biblical references that the first Judeo-Christians leaded by James or Jude believed in the Resurrection and the Redemtion by the Sacrifice of Jesus?

Thank you.

Do not know.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

"Our Father" is a (hopefully ) daily prayer that Christians pray.
(I am saying "daily" because we are asking for "daily bread".
In it we ask for forgiveness for our daily tresspasses. That forgiveness is given to us on a measure of us forgiving others that tesspassed against us.
This forgiveness is not unto salvation. Forgiveness unto salvation was done once and for all.

All forgiveness of sin is unto salvation since the wages of all sin is death.

As it states in the Small Catechism:
We pray in this petition that our Father in heaven would not look upon our sins, nor deny such petitions on account of them; for we are worthy of none of the things for which we pray, neither have we deserved them; but that He would grant them all to us by grace; for we daily sin much, and indeed deserve nothing but punishment. So will we verily, on our part, also heartily forgive and also readily do good to those who sin against us.

We also receive forgiveness through the regular reception of the Means of Grace each Sunday and holy day. Since we sin much daily and deserve God's wrath and punishment, we need to receive that forgiveness won for us on the cross daily. It isn't a one time shot, but is continually given to the believer.

 

[Edial]

All forgiveness of sin is unto salvation since the wages of all sin is death.

...

Are you saying one's salvation is dependant on the forgiveness in "Our Father" prayer?
I do not think you are saying this. Otherwise we need to pray for salvation every day.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

Are you saying one's salvation is dependant on the forgiveness in "Our Father" prayer?
I do not think you are saying this. Otherwise we need to pray for salvation every day.

Thanks,
Ed

We need to pray for forgiveness every day since we sin every day. Our salvation is dependent only on the sacrificial death of Christ which we pray includes us every day.

 

[Edial]

We need to pray for forgiveness every day since we sin every day. Our salvation is dependent only on the sacrificial death of Christ which we pray includes us every day.

Yes. We need to pray every day since we sin daily.
Would you rephraze the last part. I do not understand it. Probably missed a word.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[filosofer]

Originally Posted by New_Found_Faith
So technically any baptised person could consecrate the Eucharist?

Technically, no. While any baptized Christian may baptize, it's not necessary a given that just any baptized Christian can administer the Lord's Supper. The priesthood of believers is not the pastoral office. The priesthood of believers refers to all believers having direct access to God. We need not go through a priest for sacrificial acts. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrificial act but is sacramental. The Office of the Pastoral Ministry was instituted by God to speak and act in the stead of Christ. This is not given to all believers but to the Office. The congregation then calls one to fill that office and carry out the sacramental duties of the Office.

Respectfully disagree with DaRev. The Gospel, Sacraments, and Office of the Keys are not given to the pastoral office, but rather to the priesthood of all believers. Also, God has established the pastoral office within the congregation. But the congregation (priesthood of all believers) does not transfer these to the pastoral office... they still belong to the congregation. The man who fills the pastoral office does so publicly in behalf of the congregation. But they do not belong to the pastor. Of course, the pastoral office was not given to every person. But these means of grace are not given to the pastor but to the congregation

 

[RadMan]

Respectfully disagree with DaRev. The Gospel, Sacraments, and Office of the Keys are not given to the pastoral office, but rather to the priesthood of all believers. Also, God has established the pastoral office within the congregation. But the congregation (priesthood of all believers) does not transfer these to the pastoral office... they still belong to the congregation. The man who fills the pastoral office does so publicly in behalf of the congregation. But they do not belong to the pastor. Of course, the pastoral office was not given to every person. But these means of grace are not given to the pastor but to the congregation

You'll have to excuse his RCC upbringing.

Actually that is a bone of contention within the LCMS right now. Many want to go back to the hypo-euro Stephans influence.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

You'll have to excuse his RCC upbringing.

Actually that is a bone of contention within the LCMS right now. Many want to go back to the hypo-euro Stephans influence.

It would be fun if they wouldn't abuse it, but then again look what the hypo-euro Stephanus types have done to the European Lutheran Churches...something like 10 percent of people in Sweden believe in God.

 

[DaRev]

Respectfully disagree with DaRev. The Gospel, Sacraments, and Office of the Keys are not given to the pastoral office, but rather to the priesthood of all believers. Also, God has established the pastoral office within the congregation. But the congregation (priesthood of all believers) does not transfer these to the pastoral office... they still belong to the congregation. The man who fills the pastoral office does so publicly in behalf of the congregation. But they do not belong to the pastor. Of course, the pastoral office was not given to every person. But these means of grace are not given to the pastor but to the congregation

The Office of the Pastoral Ministry was instituted by Christ to carry out those functions that have been entrusted to the congregation. The "priesthood of believers" is not the pastoral office. They are distinct.
Yes, those functions of the office were given to the Church. And yes, the congregation calls one to carry out those functions. But I have to believe that if Christ intended for anyone to carry out those functions, He would not have instituted the office of the public ministry.
If we are to assume that any lay person can carry out those specific functions, why do we have pastors? And why did I uproot my kids, tear my family apart, and put myself into $50,000 debt to do something that just anyone can do?

You'll have to excuse his RCC upbringing.

Actually that is a bone of contention within the LCMS right now. Many want to go back to the hypo-euro Stephans influence.

It has nothing to do with my "RCC upbringing." It has to do with my good Confessional Lutheran pastoral formation at CSL.

 

[Alkhazred]

I asked many times, but maybe someone else knows the answer? What do you think?

I'm currently working on trying to recreate the complete vision of the Messiah to come according to the Torah or the Old Testament, and then apply it to Jesus. I've noticed, that multiple verses in Isaiah teach, that Messiah will win wars agains Philistins and Oriental people, like for instance, it's written in Isaiah:

"12 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth. 13 Ephraim's jealousy will vanish,
and Judah's enemies will be cut off;
Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.
14 They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west;
together they will plunder the people to the east.
They will lay hands on Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites will be subject to them."

We know that Jesus didn't do any and his message was peaceful. If it would happen after the second coming, why do Isaiah mention those ancient non existing peoples as Edomites, Ammonites or Philistins?

 

[DaRev]

I asked many times, but maybe someone else knows the answer? What do you think?

I'm currently working on trying to recreate the complete vision of the Messiah to come according to the Torah or the Old Testament, and then apply it to Jesus. I've noticed, that multiple verses in Isaiah teach, that Messiah will win wars agains Philistins and Oriental people, like for instance, it's written in Isaiah:

We know that Jesus didn't do any and his message was peaceful. If it would happen after the second coming, why do Isaiah mention those ancient non existing peoples as Edomites, Ammonites or Philistins?

Biblical prophecies make use of literary merisms, mentioning parts of something to represent the whole. In the passage you quoted it mentions a couple of the tribes/territories of Israel (Judah, Ephriam) and some of the Gentile nations (Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon). These ancient nations basically surrounded the kingdom of Israel, Philistia to the west, Edom in the south, Moab to the east, Ammon to the northeast. We also see this thype of merism in other OT passages in Ezekiel and Daniel. In the prophetic Scriptures Israel represents God's people which in the NT is the Church, believers in Christ. The Gentile nations represent the world, those who have rejected God. In the NT they are non-believers. Prophetically, they can also refer to the sinful world. Christ comes to save His people ("Israel", the Church) from the sin of the world, establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

 

[Alkhazred]

Biblical prophecies make use of literary merisms, mentioning parts of something to represent the whole. In the passage you quoted it mentions a couple of the tribes/territories of Israel (Judah, Ephriam) and some of the Gentile nations (Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon). These ancient nations basically surrounded the kingdom of Israel, Philistia to the west, Edom in the south, Moab to the east, Ammon to the northeast. We also see this thype of merism in other OT passages in Ezekiel and Daniel. In the prophetic Scriptures Israel represents God's people which in the NT is the Church, believers in Christ. The Gentile nations represent the world, those who have rejected God. In the NT they are non-believers. Prophetically, they can also refer to the sinful world. Christ comes to save His people ("Israel", the Church) from the sin of the world, establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

Woooow! At least somebody answered me. Thanks, pastor! Me, personnaly, I would say, Isaiah had obtained the God's revelation, but had written it according to his comprehension.

 

[DaRev]

Woooow! At least somebody answered me. Thanks, pastor! Me, personnaly, I would say, Isaiah had obtained the God's revelation, but had written it according to his comprehension.

That's pretty much how the inspired prophetic writings occured.

 

[kevin.d.cherry]

I have been wondering something actually. I am taking the new member classes at a LCMS church, and i wanted to know what i would need to do to be confirmed after the classes. Is there usually a separate class for confirmation or is it just kind of a passive thing? I asked my pastor about it but he gave me some kind of weird answer that had nothing to do with my question, something about how the middle schoolers have a really long class but in essence it's answering a bunch of questions. ???

 

[DaRev]

I have been wondering something actually. I am taking the new member classes at a LCMS church, and i wanted to know what i would need to do to be confirmed after the classes. Is there usually a separate class for confirmation or is it just kind of a passive thing? I asked my pastor about it but he gave me some kind of weird answer that had nothing to do with my question, something about how the middle schoolers have a really long class but in essence it's answering a bunch of questions. ???

Your new member classes are your confirmation instruction. Once your classes are finished you have the choice of joining the congregation (no one is obligated to join when taking the classes). Once the instruction is over, there will be a "rite of accepting new members" during one of the worship services. That, in essence, is your confirmation of the faith and your official entry into the Lutheran congregation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Your new member classes are your confirmation instruction. Once your classes are finished you have the choice of joining the congregation (no one is obligated to join when taking the classes). Once the instruction is over, there will be a "rite of accepting new members" during one of the worship services. That, in essence, is your confirmation of the faith and your official entry into the Lutheran congregation.

Basically it is an affirmation of the promises (vows) made during the baptismal rite. A short, sweet confession of faith.

God bless you in your journey.