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

[Jonaitis]

Lutherans believe in forensic justification. That's a major difference.

 

[Lawrence7]

Lutherans believe in forensic justification. That's a major difference.

Are we're defining Forensic Justification as: "A divine verdict of acquittal pronounced on the believing sinner"?

Acquittal, meaning a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.

There may be a lot of Lutherans who teach forensic justification, but it isn't really supported as a matter of Lutheranism with respect to core doctrine.

The Biblical view as embraced in Lutheranism is ‘Atonement’.

Atonement, as in ‘reparation or expiation for sin.’

Reparation, as in the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.

In a Biblical sense the amends for the wrongness of sin is death, where Jesus' death (which is what Jesus does) is the making of amends for our wrongs.

Repentance in acknowledging guilt for sin of which we are being held in judgement (is what we do in context of Jesus' death).

If we are acquitted it means we are not guilty, thereby no reason or need for repentance.

>>>
Luther taught that the punishment for sin is paid by Jesus rather than us. Our conviction of sin is never acquitted, in this regard, but rather our debt incurred by our sin is paid for by Jesus. Herein Justification by Faith alone, Scripture/Word alone, and Grace alone. Three references to Justification paralleling God (Grace), Jesus (Word), and Holy Spirit (Faith).

>>>
Here is a quote form R.C. Sproul (Presbyterian) commenting on this in reference to Romans 1:17, and making a better argument than I can in favor of Luther's view of justification by faith.

"But Luther was looking now at the Greek word that was in the New Testament, not the Latin word. The word dikaios, dikaiosune, which didn’t mean to make righteous, but rather to regard as righteous, to count as righteous, to declare as righteous. And this was the moment of awakening for Luther. He said, “You mean, here Paul is not talking about the righteousness by which God Himself is righteous, but a righteousness that God gives freely by His grace to people who don’t have righteousness of their own.”

"And so Luther said, “Woa, you mean the righteousness by which I will be saved, is not mine?” It’s what he called a justitia alienum, an alien righteousness; a righteousness that belongs properly to somebody else. It’s a righteousness that is extra nos, outside of us. Namely, the righteousness of Christ. And Luther said, “When I discovered that, I was born again of the Holy Ghost. And the doors of paradise swung open, and I walked through.”

 

[Lawrence7]

And we tend to be very persistent about resisting change so there is less tendency of faction le developing far into liberal/conservative or confessional/evangelical or what have you (not that there are not persons and groups of people who try to introduce such things, but by the grace of God and the mindset of the Orthodox Church, hopefully they will not get far).

This is a core element of 'Lutheranism' thinking as well. This is also why Luther worked to identify and separate the most important theological works of "Scripture" from those works he felt were more "Scriptural", of theological value but not to the level of Canon.

What I mean is that Luther, and the majority of Reformers from that point forward, agreed that the 66 books of the modern Bible contain all we need to understand the core message of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

What Luther did not say is that other theological works are irrelevant.

Luther removed the 'Apocrypha' books form the Bible, but not from his library. Any Lutheran theologian work his salt will have a copy of these works somewhere, along with works from the Eastern Orthodox collection, as well as various well known denominational writers.

If a theological work may be reconciled with the 66 books of Protestant Cannon, it will not contradict Lutheranism doctrine, and most Lutherans are generally okay with it. Likewise with Oral Traditions that we can reconcile with the 66 book Bible.

Lutherans pay attention to what Latin Orthodoxy teaches, and what Eastern Orthodoxy teachers. Lutherans study what Calvin said, what Arminius taught, how did Wesley impact N.Americans, Bily Graham's influences, R.C.Sproul's insights, CS Lewis' philosophical discussions, as well as CFW Walther's views which heavily influence N.American Lutherans, to name a few.

Again, I'm not speaking as a representative of Lutherans as individuals, but in context of Lutheran Orthodoxy in terms of the Book of Concord. Lutheran Orthodoxy versus Eastern Orthodoxy, and by consequence versus Latin Orthodoxy as well.

The discussion of Lutheran Protestantism versus other Protestant views is another conversation, in my mind.

 

[GkOrthodox]

Article that I found which is an interesting read:
Faith, Free Will and Salvation: The Heresy of Monergism

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What I mean is that Luther, and the majority of Reformers from that point forward, agreed that the 66 books of the modern Bible contain all we need to understand the core message of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

That really ought to read "the 66 books of the generally received Protestant canon" since having 66 books in one's bible is a mark of Protestant affiliation while having 73 is a mark of Catholic affiliation. The Orthodox may wish to make a note about their canon lists here.

I am inclined to think that it is the 73 books of the Catholic Canon that present a sufficient basis for most Christian doctrine and that the 66 books of Protestantism will leave some doctrinal matters unsure.