Lutheran vs Orthodox: What's Are the Main Differences?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is such a thing possible? If so, what is an example?

I don't think it is possible, but there are adherents to the theory of libertarian free will who believe that the exact same person in two universes that are exactly the same could in one case choose a blue car and in another case choose a red car, despite the exact same circumstances, because if people aren't free to choose despite their circumstances then they aren't free at all.

Honestly, I sort of agree with that last point: if we don't have libertarian free will, such that our will can completely defy our circumstances, then we don't have free will at all.

However, that is actually a fairly different question from the relationship between human choice and divine action. After all, even if we don't have free will, we may still end up being directed (by fate or circumstance) into the arms of the church. And, even if we do have free will, such that we can in the exact same circumstance freely choose the red or the blue car, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can use our will to change our relationship vis-a-vis God.

Why is that?

Well, I don't think the hand metaphor is all that helpful in explaining the "why," although it works pretty well for describing the "how."

So getting away from the metaphor: we Lutherans believe that a person, and all their faculties including the will, is only healed by saving grace. And thus if God is going to heal the will such that it can freely choose the Good, then God has already done the work of saving them.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Ah, I had forgotten this paragraph when I wrote my response to the last one. I would be following you just fine if it wasn't for my friend I have in mind. She has never been to church in her life, that I am aware of. I don't know. Her mother said they were Catholic ... maybe she was baptized as an infant. (If you knew her mother, I'd be tempted to say probably she wasn't. Her mother was literally a monster.) Something was planted in her somewhere, somehow. I keep praying for her, and honestly, I think - I hope - God will have mercy on her, considering her life and how she has done in spite of it.

Sorry for the aside. I'm still not sure what to think about all of that. I don't think there is something in "some of us" that is "good" and means that we will turn to God as a result. I do believe God must draw anyone, in order for them to come to Him. And I do believe He desires all to be saved. Which logically puts me right back where you are describing. Or very nearly so. But given that as you said, we can't see what is going on. Enter into the equation the Word and Sacraments. And also you have individual differences. It would seem to be a very inexact thing to predict what any one person's outcome will be, given our own limited knowledge.

Well, I certainly don't think that only Christians can have a "heart of gold."

I think when Lutherans talk about how all that proceeds from Christians proceeds from good, and all that proceeds from the unsaved is ultimately evil, we're not talking about the inner motivations of people (let alone the effects). We're simply talking about how God regards those actions: God sees the good actions of those outside the faith, knows they produce temporal goods, but doesn't regard them as availing any eternal good, and sees the sinful actions of those inside the faith, knows they produce temporal evils, but regardless them as forgiven. The ultimate character of any action is grounded in the mind of God, not in their present reality.

That doesn't really say anything about the inner motivations, which is (at least in my experience) more how evangelicals (at least in my personal experience, including my own former understanding) tend to view the goodness or vileness of human action. Personally, I know that not all my good actions come from good inner motivations, and my sins aren't simply mistakes that went wrong somewhere between a good inner motivation and a bad result. And I suspect that there certainly are non-Christians who, way deep down, have basically good motivations behind their actions. I hate to use Gandhi as an example because its cliche (and based on a fairly naive understanding of his program), but I don't think that simply because he was a non-Christian we need to assume that behind his good works there was some hidden evil intent, maybe even unknown to himself, but there nonetheless.

Not only Lutherans, correct? I think almost everyone agrees that our righteousness compared to God is nonexistent. But you make a good distinction here, and that makes sense to me.

I don't think only Lutherans make the coram Deo/coram mundo distinction (also known as the two kinds of righteousness), but the terms are pretty distinctly Lutheran.

That distinction within reality goes a long way toward explaining why we don't believe human will, cooperation, or good works can ever positively change our status before God; when we do anything, that action is sent out horizontally, in the temporal realm, toward others. Even if we had free will to choose God, or even if our works were perfectly good, they are tools for our interaction with and service to others. And in that sense, we absolutely have to do good works, because that is our whole vocation as Christians- to participate in God's redemption of the world. But it seems really self-centered, to me, to think that just because we're doing our job that means God will regard us more highly in such a way that it will change our status coram Deo.

 

[Cappadocious]

So getting away from the metaphor: we Lutherans believe that a person, and all their faculties including the will, is only healed by saving grace. And thus if God is going to heal the will such that it can freely choose the Good, then God has already done the work of saving them.

That does not sound problematic to me.

My concern is: It seems as though, when many Lutherans talk about salvation, that the work of Christ is being... how can I put it... "funneled" in a very disturbing way. It is as if Christ's work has no effect on the world, or on any universal. It is as if the world remains just as it was before Christ; Yes, God will now choose to approach discrete, individual humans at particular moments in their lives. Now he will perform an isolated application of Christ's merits which regenerates a given discrete individual. But there is no radical cosmic change; no transformation of humanity as a whole.

Honestly, I sort of agree with that last point: if we don't have libertarian free will, such that our will can completely defy our circumstances, then we don't have free will at all.

If one defines free will in this way, then free will is not only beyond our grasp; it is impossible.

I would argue, contrary to the libertarian, that circumscribed free will is still free will.

 

[cerette]

Right, I am speaking here of what is often called sanctification.

I had understoond that sanctification was credited to God's work alone, and not in any way attributed to the man? Where Lutherans are concerned, I mean.

Please forgive me if I got a wrong impression somewhere along the way. It seems I may have, since you say man+God. I would agree with that.

No, Lutherans believe that sanctification is both God and man.
(It's with regard to justification we Lutherans stress that it's only God.)
So, we say:
Justification: God alone
Sanctification: God & man

 

[Dorothea]

Thank you, Dorothea. I always find Thekla's comments to be very helpful.

You're welcome, and I do, too.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

No, Lutherans believe that sanctification is both God and man.
(It's with regard to justification we Lutherans stress that it's only God.)
So, we say:
Justification: God alone
Sanctification: God & man

From my experience, too many hard-core Lutherans end up viewing Sanctification as secondary to justification.

I think I might be one of the few people on CF who can speak from both side of this fence as I grew up LCMS until I was 33 and spent 10 years as an elder (assistants to the pastor, for the Orthodox, we might consider them unordained deacons) and converted to Greek Orthodoxy in 2002 and spent one wonderful year in seminary until some family crises blew up in my face.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That does not sound problematic to me.

My concern is: It seems as though, when many Lutherans talk about salvation, that the work of Christ is being... how can I put it... "funneled" in a very disturbing way. It is as if Christ's work has no effect on the world, or on any universal. It is as if the world remains just as it was before Christ; Yes, God will now choose to approach discrete, individual humans at particular moments in their lives. Now he will perform an isolated application of Christ's merits which regenerates a given discrete individual. But there is no radical cosmic change; no transformation of humanity as a whole.

I certainly hope that isn't the case in Lutheran theology, but I can see how you would see it that way.

Lutherans definitely believe, teach, and confess that God's plan for redemption is bigger than the salvation of isolated individuals who are whisked out of the world into heaven when they die. We believe that the flip side of predestination is vocation; that is, just as we are elected by God to be brought into the family of faith so too we are given jobs to do that increase the temporal wellbeing of others, as fathers, husbands, sons wives, mothers, daughters, employers, employees, servants, masters, pastors, laity, and so forth. And we believe that the salvation of individuals happens in and through the church (that place where baptism and the Eucharist are visibly practiced in accordance with the teaching of the Word), and that the body of believers participates in the resurrection life that will culminate in full cosmic renewal on the day of the general resurrection.

So yes, we definitely teach all that. I think the reason it is not so apparent is that throughout the many debates during the Reformation we tended to focus on those questions that divided us (justification for Lutherans and Catholics, the real presence in communion for Lutherans and Calvinists) rather than the grander narrative of God's work of cosmic redemption which unites us.

As a result, if I want to explore that grander narrative, it is true that I've had to go outside Lutheran sources: particularly to the church fathers (Athanasius and Augustine in particular) and contemporary Reformed, Anglican, and Catholic covenant theologians (Michael Horton, N.T. Wright, Scott Hahn, Pope Emeritus Benedict). That's not because Lutherans don't believe it; it's because we believe that that, as Lutherans and thus as evangelical Catholics, we have a particular mission to restore the fullness of the apostolic teaching on justification to the Catholic Church, and so our theologians and scholars have focused their writings there.

If one defines free will in this way, then free will is not only beyond our grasp; it is impossible.

I would argue, contrary to the libertarian, that circumscribed free will is still free will.

Perhaps so. Honestly, I haven't been keeping up on my philosophical reading as much as I should and am not in any sort of intellectual shape for that discussion. All I wanted to point out was that the Lutheran belief that the human will, post-fall, in a state of nature, cannot effect salvation by a free choice, except by a grace that would save a person even before they could go on to make a choice, making the choice subsequent to what it would then choose.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

From my experience, too many hard-core Lutherans end up viewing Sanctification as secondary to justification.

I think I might be one of the few people on CF who can speak from both side of this fence as I grew up LCMS until I was 33 and spent 10 years as an elder (assistants to the pastor, for the Orthodox, we might consider them unordained deacons) and converted to Greek Orthodoxy in 2002 and spent one wonderful year in seminary until some family crises blew up in my face.

You'll be happy to know that the Systematics faculty at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, is strongly working to change that. We finally have a Theological Ethics course taught at least once a year, renewed focus on the Eucharist as the heart of the ongoing Christian life, regular private as well as public confession and absolution, and a very, very strong emphasis on vocation and civil righteousness (= activity coram mundo) as the actively responsibility of the Christian life.

Unfortunately, there are also some old school people who believe that the doctrine of the two kinds of righteousness and the third use of the law are being overemphasized in St. Louis (quite hilariously, considering that even in St. Louis they're less emphasized than in almost any other serious seminary, Lutheran or non-, in America), and who absolutely refuse to discuss the New Finnish Perspective on Luther and its willingness to see some overlap between Luther's understanding of the life of faith and the Orthodox understanding of θεωσις.

But we're trying!

 

[Cappadocious]

I certainly hope that isn't the case in Lutheran theology, but I can see how you would see it that way.

Lutherans definitely believe, teach, and confess that God's plan for redemption is bigger than the salvation of isolated individuals who are whisked out of the world into heaven when they die. We believe that the flip side of predestination is vocation; that is, just as we are elected by God to be brought into the family of faith so too we are given jobs to do that increase the temporal wellbeing of others, as fathers, husbands, sons wives, mothers, daughters, employers, employees, servants, masters, pastors, laity, and so forth. And we believe that the salvation of individuals happens in and through the church (that place where baptism and the Eucharist are visibly practiced in accordance with the teaching of the Word), and that the body of believers participates in the resurrection life that will culminate in full cosmic renewal on the day of the general resurrection.

So yes, we definitely teach all that. I think the reason it is not so apparent is that throughout the many debates during the Reformation we tended to focus on those questions that divided us (justification for Lutherans and Catholics, the real presence in communion for Lutherans and Calvinists) rather than the grander narrative of God's work of cosmic redemption which unites us.

An honest and helpful answer. Thanks.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

You'll be happy to know that the Systematics faculty at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, is strongly working to change that. We finally have a Theological Ethics course taught at least once a year, renewed focus on the Eucharist as the heart of the ongoing Christian life, regular private as well as public confession and absolution, and a very, very strong emphasis on vocation and civil righteousness (= activity coram mundo) as the actively responsibility of the Christian life.

Unfortunately, there are also some old school people who believe that the doctrine of the two kinds of righteousness and the third use of the law are being overemphasized in St. Louis (quite hilariously, considering that even in St. Louis they're less emphasized than in almost any other serious seminary, Lutheran or non-, in America), and who absolutely refuse to discuss the New Finnish Perspective on Luther and its willingness to see some overlap between Luther's understanding of the life of faith and the Orthodox understanding of θεωσις.

But we're trying!

Well dagnabbit you probably just declared war on Otten and the Cassione clan !!! Next thing you know, you'll all be swimming the Tiber, the Bosphorus or heck, supporting Dallas or Fuller!! Dont you know that general confession is all ya really need? Ahhh for days when "Real Lutherans" (TM) went to the Fort rather than Zion on the Mississippi and the Purple Palace and went around denouncing Seminex, the LCA, ALC and AELC. (uhhh did I just give away my age?)

One of the things I witnessed was that the lack of doctrine around sanctification is that people thought, "Well Im justified by faith (alone), what do we do now?" And that led to the importation of Methobapticostal (R) programs and worship because nothing was really developed from a Lutheran mindset. Dear Lord, CPH put out some absolutely terrible programs and Bible studies. As high schooler in the 80s these were dreadful. Thank heavens my church would get the occasional vicar who was interested in youth ministry and would put his own stuff together. I know two of them went on to teaching, one at the Fort and the other at Elmhurst College. My last few years as a Lutheran we had people running some of the weirdest Bible studies... okay, just "studies" cause self-help books replaced the Bible for most of them.

Since you bring up theosis, that was a eye-opening experience for me was the notion that we continue to grow and become one with God. I never saw any of that type of thinking in the Missouri Synod. Okay, ELCA might, but far too liberal for my taste

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well dagnabbit you probably just declared war on Otten and the Cassione clan !!! Next thing you know, you'll all be swimming the Tiber, the Bosphorus or heck, supporting Dallas or Fuller!! Dont you know that general confession is all ya really need? Ahhh for days when "Real Lutherans" (TM) went to the Fort rather than Zion on the Mississippi and the Purple Palace and went around denouncing Seminex, the LCA, ALC and AELC. (uhhh did I just give away my age?)

One of the things I witnessed was that the lack of doctrine around sanctification is that people thought, "Well Im justified by faith (alone), what do we do now?" And that led to the importation of Methobapticostal (R) programs and worship because nothing was really developed from a Lutheran mindset. Dear Lord, CPH put out some absolutely terrible programs and Bible studies. As high schooler in the 80s these were dreadful. Thank heavens my church would get the occasional vicar who was interested in youth ministry and would put his own stuff together. I know two of them went on to teaching, one at the Fort and the other at Elmhurst College. My last few years as a Lutheran we had people running some of the weirdest Bible studies... okay, just "studies" cause self-help books replaced the Bible for most of them.

Since you bring up theosis, that was a eye-opening experience for me was the notion that we continue to grow and become one with God. I never saw any of that type of thinking in the Missouri Synod. Okay, ELCA might, but far too liberal for my taste

You know, I'd love to say that you did just give away your age, but while we've made some major strides, alas, there are people still complaining about Seminex.

But, fortunately, you'll also find wonderful books like these:

Only the last three are CPH/LCMS publications, but about that last one, the late Father Richard John Neuhaus (a Lutheran convert to Catholicism) wrote "While this carefully researched and lucidly argued book addresses questions chiefly of interest within the Lutheran community, it is also an ecumenical contribution in that it helps to counter the suspicion of other Christians that the Lutheran understanding of the Gospel is essentially antinomian, proposing liberation from, rather than obedience to, the Law of God."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I recall, Luther himself didn't get to do so, but some of his followers approached the Church of Constantinople.

So, here are some similarities, first:

1. Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
2. The efficacy of baptism.
3. Liturgical worship.
4. A love for St. Augustine.

Some differences:

1. Orthodox have an episcopal structure, which distinguishes between presbyters and bishops. Lutherans do not.
2. Lutherans are monergists, while Orthodox are synergists. But, when talked out, the difference between Orthodox synergism and Lutheran monergism may not be so large.
3. Orthodox aknowledge more sacraments/mysteries than baptism and the eucharist (i.e. chrismation), while Lutherans only accept baptism and the eucharist.
4. Lutherans typically don't physically venerate things. Orthodox do.

Corrections....

Most Lutheran denominations ARE episcopal in structure. Congregational Lutheran denominations are quite rare (mine PARTLY qualifies as such; we are a small minority within Lutheranism in that regard).

Lutherans don't dogmatically number the Sacraments at ALL. While Luther in his Small Catechism specifically speaks of two - he doesn't limit it to two. The Lutheran Confessions also speak of Penance as a Sacrament and hint that Ordination may be. SACRAMENT is a human term - humans can define it any way they like. It is the RCC and Reformed Protestants who (literally!) fight over the NUMBER of Sacraments, Lutherans have always stayed on the sidelines on that.

I think additional differences are:

Lutherans accept the idea of Original sin.... indeed, they have a concept of depravity that is quite foreign to the Orthodox.

While Lutherans are strongly liturgical, they reject the idea that worship must be in a certain language and cannot be changed; Lutherans stress that worship should be in the native language of the worshiping people and that the form need not be the same everywhere.

While some Lutherans have A concept of Apostolic Succession, none apply that the way that the RCC does and I THINK the EOC does (to a lesser extent). It has nothing to do with infallibility or unaccountability for Lutherans, even where such is spoken of. Lutherans tend to point to Scripture rather than to some "succession."


I think additional similarities....

Both have a strong embrace of MYSTERY, a word BOTH use a LOT. Both hesitate to "over-define" things. There is a basic simplicity in both.

Both have a strong embrace in keeping things original. Both point to Scripture more than the RCC, both point to the Ecumenical Creeds and Councils more than the RCC. While the EOC regards those Councils more definitively than Lutherans, we BOTH are very interested in looking to the early church - rather than to our own denomination as is the case of the RCC.

Both seem to have a major "problem" with the POWER issue of Catholicism, the issue of denomination in Catholicism. There is a deep sense of HUMILITY in both what is quite stunning vis-a-vis Catholicism.


I have a good Greek Orthodox friend (we met as undergrads in college).... I am amazed by how much we AGREE - not just in teachings but ESPECIALLY in spirit, in attitude, in heart, in spirituality (AND in our evaluations of Roman Catholicism). We don't agree completely, obviously, and she HAS made me aware of just how much of Catholicism Lutherans retain - but what has amazed us BOTH is how similar our two faith communities are.



May all the blessings of this Easter season be yours....


- Josiah





.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Corrections....

Most Lutheran denominations ARE episcopal in structure. Congregational Lutheran denominations are quite rare (mine PARTLY qualifies as such; we are a small minority within Lutheranism in that regard).

Lutherans don't dogmatically number the Sacraments at ALL. While Luther in his Small Catechism specifically speaks of two - he doesn't limit it to two. The Lutheran Confessions also speak of Penance as a Sacrament and hint that Ordination may be. SACRAMENT is a human term - humans can define it any way they like. It is the RCC and Reformed Protestants who (literally!) fight over the NUMBER of Sacraments, Lutherans have always stayed on the sidelines on that.

I think additional differences are:

Lutherans accept the idea of Original sin.... indeed, they have a concept of depravity that is quite foreign to the Orthodox.

While Lutherans are strongly liturgical, they reject the idea that worship must be in a certain language and cannot be changed; Lutherans stress that worship should be in the native language of the worshiping people and that the form need not be the same everywhere.

While some Lutherans have A concept of Apostolic Succession, none apply that the way that the RCC does and I THINK the EOC does (to a lesser extent). It has nothing to do with infallibility or unaccountability for Lutherans, even where such is spoken of. Lutherans tend to point to Scripture rather than to some "succession."


I think additional similarities....

Both have a strong embrace of MYSTERY, a word BOTH use a LOT. Both hesitate to "over-define" things. There is a basic simplicity in both.

Both have a strong embrace in keeping things original. Both point to Scripture more than the RCC, both point to the Ecumenical Creeds and Councils more than the RCC. While the EOC regards those Councils more definitively than Lutherans, we BOTH are very interested in looking to the early church - rather than to our own denomination as is the case of the RCC.

Both seem to have a major "problem" with the POWER issue of Catholicism, the issue of denomination in Catholicism. There is a deep sense of HUMILITY in both what is quite stunning vis-a-vis Catholicism.


I have a good Greek Orthodox friend (we met as undergrads in college).... I am amazed by how much we AGREE - not just in teachings but ESPECIALLY in spirit, in attitude, in heart, in spirituality (AND in our evaluations of Roman Catholicism). We don't agree completely, obviously, and she HAS made me aware of just how much of Catholicism Lutherans retain - but what has amazed us BOTH is how similar our two faith communities are.



May all the blessings of this Easter season be yours....


- Josiah





.

WHAT THE?!

WHERE DID YOU COME FROM?!

Long time no see!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

WHAT THE?!

WHERE DID YOU COME FROM?!

Long time no see!

Remember me??? It's been years now.

I've effectively been booted out of CF.... and now post at CARM. You can read about that in my "testimony" thread (link in my siggy).

BUT..... almost daily, I visit here just to see what folks LIKE YOU are saying; I miss you guys and STILL learn from many here.....


Easter blessings to you and yours!


- Josiah

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Remember me??? It's been years now.

I've effectively been booted out of CF.... and now post at CARM. You can read about that in my "testimony" thread (link in my siggy).

BUT..... almost daily, I visit here just to see what folks LIKE YOU are saying; I miss you guys and STILL learn from many here.....


Easter blessings to you and yours!


- Josiah

God bless and great to hear from you!

 

[Cappadocious]

Greetings

While Lutherans are strongly liturgical, they reject the idea that worship must be in a certain language and cannot be changed; Lutherans stress that worship should be in the native language of the worshiping people and that the form need not be the same everywhere.

We don't have immutable liturgical languages either. What do you mean by "the form" not needing to be the same?

While some Lutherans have A concept of Apostolic Succession, none apply that the way that the RCC does and I THINK the EOC does (to a lesser extent). It has nothing to do with infallibility or unaccountability for Lutherans, even where such is spoken of. Lutherans tend to point to Scripture rather than to some "succession."

I've never heard someone link apostolic succession with infallibility or unaccountability.

 

[Lawrence7]

This is an old Thread, but is appropriate to my current life situation now in sorting out my own search for answers about denominational disunity.

We create a difficulty here in trying to explain Eastern Doctrine in a Lutheran context, or Calvinism in an Orthodox context, etc. We must explain a given Doctrine in context of that doctrine to see where it leads. We gain a better understanding of what that Doctrine really teaches, and a clearer understanding of the differences of where they lead.

Having said that, there are several Lutheran positions that are most often misunderstood.

Man’s freedom of will. In Lutheran context man has freedom of will, but in our sinful condition our choices to do good are based on selfish reasons, not godly reasons. In this, humans always choose sinfully, even though the work may outwardly appear good. Herein the Work of the Holy Spirit is paramount in changing our nature from sinful to holy. When the Holy Spirit works through us and guides our decisions, only then can we make Good choices for God pleasing reasons, and do truly good and holy works.

The work of Salvation. God in His Grace, (where Grace is not a thing, but reflects God’s favor), offers His own sacrifice for our Sin (which is Jesus, who is a thing). This is because, in our sinful condition, we are unable to offer an appropriate sacrifice of our own. (See above regarding selfish reasoning.) God in Human form, Jesus, (who is both man in form and God in spirit) sacrifices Himself for us. Upon Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit is revealed to us, and God continues to action His promise of Salvation via the Holy Spirit.

The order of Salvation. God, Jesus, Salvation, Holy Spirit, Baptism, Faith, Repentance; our own forgiveness of others; and then truly good and holy works on behalf of God, rather than on behalf of the selfishness of man. In this, good works are a consequence of Salvation, not a step toward salvation, and not a part of salvation. If there is one thing Lutherans must do in context of a work of salvation, it is to forgive others as Jesus has forgiven us.

The work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not simply dwell within us, the Holy Spirit infuses with our sinful spirit, cleansing our spirit to Holiness. There is no work on our part that makes this happen. This is a Monergist action on God’s part. From this point forward our will is now able to choose properly and we can now work with God in accordance with His direct guidance. This is in a more Synergistic view.

This view follows the pattern of Jesus, born both Physical Man and Spiritual God. We now exist in God’s likeness with the Holy Spirit cleansing our own spirit, while still maintaining our physical human and individual identity. We are still tempted by our flesh just as Jesus was tempted, yet we are now able to resist temptations as Jesus also resisted. Our flesh remains inherently sinful, but no longer controls our will to ultimate selfishness, rather repentance and faithful worship of God is reflected in our good choices and deeds.

Lutherans do not worship as a means to please God, nor do good works to please God. Lutherans worship and do good works as a means of thanksgiving and praise, because God is pleased with Christ’s sacrifice making us again worthy to be called His children, and be embraced by God in Heaven when we pass on from our earthly trials.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello Lawrence and welcome (back?) to CF. Thanks for the additional info.

Yes this is indeed an old thread. It's good to see the screen names of a few I don't see around anymore - really miss them. A lot has changed in five years.

I hope you'll stay around and post more. And that you're blessed by being here.

God be with you.

This is an old Thread, but is appropriate to my current life situation now in sorting out my own search for answers about denominational disunity.

We create a difficulty here in trying to explain Eastern Doctrine in a Lutheran context, or Calvinism in an Orthodox context, etc. We must explain a given Doctrine in context of that doctrine to see where it leads. We gain a better understanding of what that Doctrine really teaches, and a clearer understanding of the differences of where they lead.

Having said that, there are several Lutheran positions that are most often misunderstood.

Man’s freedom of will. In Lutheran context man has freedom of will, but in our sinful condition our choices to do good are based on selfish reasons, not godly reasons. In this, humans always choose sinfully, even though the work may outwardly appear good. Herein the Work of the Holy Spirit is paramount in changing our nature from sinful to holy. When the Holy Spirit works through us and guides our decisions, only then can we make Good choices for God pleasing reasons, and do truly good and holy works.

The work of Salvation. God in His Grace, (where Grace is not a thing, but reflects God’s favor), offers His own sacrifice for our Sin (which is Jesus, who is a thing). This is because, in our sinful condition, we are unable to offer an appropriate sacrifice of our own. (See above regarding selfish reasoning.) God in Human form, Jesus, (who is both man in form and God in spirit) sacrifices Himself for us. Upon Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit is revealed to us, and God continues to action His promise of Salvation via the Holy Spirit.

The order of Salvation. God, Jesus, Salvation, Holy Spirit, Baptism, Faith, Repentance; our own forgiveness of others; and then truly good and holy works on behalf of God, rather than on behalf of the selfishness of man. In this, good works are a consequence of Salvation, not a step toward salvation, and not a part of salvation. If there is one thing Lutherans must do in context of a work of salvation, it is to forgive others as Jesus has forgiven us.

The work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not simply dwell within us, the Holy Spirit infuses with our sinful spirit, cleansing our spirit to Holiness. There is no work on our part that makes this happen. This is a Monergist action on God’s part. From this point forward our will is now able to choose properly and we can now work with God in accordance with His direct guidance. This is in a more Synergistic view.

This view follows the pattern of Jesus, born both Physical Man and Spiritual God. We now exist in God’s likeness with the Holy Spirit cleansing our own spirit, while still maintaining our physical human and individual identity. We are still tempted by our flesh just as Jesus was tempted, yet we are now able to resist temptations as Jesus also resisted. Our flesh remains inherently sinful, but no longer controls our will to ultimate selfishness, rather repentance and faithful worship of God is reflected in our good choices and deeds.

Lutherans do not worship as a means to please God, nor do good works to please God. Lutherans worship and do good works as a means of thanksgiving and praise, because God is pleased with Christ’s sacrifice making us again worthy to be called His children, and be embraced by God in Heaven when we pass on from our earthly trials.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is an old Thread, but is appropriate to my current life situation now in sorting out my own search for answers about denominational disunity.

We create a difficulty here in trying to explain Eastern Doctrine in a Lutheran context, or Calvinism in an Orthodox context, etc. We must explain a given Doctrine in context of that doctrine to see where it leads. We gain a better understanding of what that Doctrine really teaches, and a clearer understanding of the differences of where they lead.

Having said that, there are several Lutheran positions that are most often misunderstood.

Man’s freedom of will. In Lutheran context man has freedom of will, but in our sinful condition our choices to do good are based on selfish reasons, not godly reasons. In this, humans always choose sinfully, even though the work may outwardly appear good. Herein the Work of the Holy Spirit is paramount in changing our nature from sinful to holy. When the Holy Spirit works through us and guides our decisions, only then can we make Good choices for God pleasing reasons, and do truly good and holy works.

The work of Salvation. God in His Grace, (where Grace is not a thing, but reflects God’s favor), offers His own sacrifice for our Sin (which is Jesus, who is a thing). This is because, in our sinful condition, we are unable to offer an appropriate sacrifice of our own. (See above regarding selfish reasoning.) God in Human form, Jesus, (who is both man in form and God in spirit) sacrifices Himself for us. Upon Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit is revealed to us, and God continues to action His promise of Salvation via the Holy Spirit.

The order of Salvation. God, Jesus, Salvation, Holy Spirit, Baptism, Faith, Repentance; our own forgiveness of others; and then truly good and holy works on behalf of God, rather than on behalf of the selfishness of man. In this, good works are a consequence of Salvation, not a step toward salvation, and not a part of salvation. If there is one thing Lutherans must do in context of a work of salvation, it is to forgive others as Jesus has forgiven us.

The work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not simply dwell within us, the Holy Spirit infuses with our sinful spirit, cleansing our spirit to Holiness. There is no work on our part that makes this happen. This is a Monergist action on God’s part. From this point forward our will is now able to choose properly and we can now work with God in accordance with His direct guidance. This is in a more Synergistic view.

This view follows the pattern of Jesus, born both Physical Man and Spiritual God. We now exist in God’s likeness with the Holy Spirit cleansing our own spirit, while still maintaining our physical human and individual identity. We are still tempted by our flesh just as Jesus was tempted, yet we are now able to resist temptations as Jesus also resisted. Our flesh remains inherently sinful, but no longer controls our will to ultimate selfishness, rather repentance and faithful worship of God is reflected in our good choices and deeds.

Lutherans do not worship as a means to please God, nor do good works to please God. Lutherans worship and do good works as a means of thanksgiving and praise, because God is pleased with Christ’s sacrifice making us again worthy to be called His children, and be embraced by God in Heaven when we pass on from our earthly trials.

There are two issues I would want to raise:

The first is Christological, perhaps you could clarify what you are saying when you speak of Jesus being "man in form and God in spirit" and "Physical Man and Spiritual God"; my issue here is that without further clarification this seems like a denial of orthodox Christology and looks like a kind of Apollinarianism. I'm not accusing you of course, only asking for further clarification as Christology is an easily miscommunicated thing. Seeing as Christ is fully human both physically and spiritually ("of a rational soul and body" using the language of Chalcedon) as well as being fully God in nature (as the only-begotten Son, eternally begotten of the Father as true and very God). I know I might be nitpicking, but at least for the sake of others reading this thread it might be good to clarify and ensure we are communicating good Christology.

The second has to do with your statement, "If there is one thing Lutherans must do in context of a work of salvation, it is to forgive others as Jesus has forgiven us." This comes across as a dangerous confusion of Law and Gospel, as we are commanded to forgive others it is therefore a matter of the Law; and all things pertaining to the Law cannot save. The forgiveness of others is, like other aspects of the New Obedience, an outflow of our faith, through the power of the Spirit, in love toward others, not a conditional upon which our justification before God depends. As our justification before God depends entirely and solely on the work and activity of God, objectively, through Christ and His work and subjectively appropriated to us by God through His Means of Grace.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lawrence7]

There are two issues I would want to raise:

The first is Christological, perhaps you could clarify what you are saying when you speak of Jesus being "man in form and God in spirit" and "Physical Man and Spiritual God"; my issue here is that without further clarification this seems like a denial of orthodox Christology and looks like a kind of Apollinarianism.

The second has to do with your statement, "If there is one thing Lutherans must do in context of a work of salvation, it is to forgive others as Jesus has forgiven us." This comes across as a dangerous confusion of Law and Gospel, as we are commanded to forgive others it is therefore a matter of the Law;

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for bringing up these issues. My simple statements in these regards are open to interpretation and resultant confusions.

I agree with you on both counts and thank you for adding these clarifications.