I am currently without a church, and seeking. Lutheran thought seems very Biblical and historical so far. More so than the modern churches that seems to promote Once Saved Always Saved, and the Left Behind type rapture.
But there are a few things I'm not sold on yet.
1. Being called "Lutheran" - we are told we are not "of" anyone but Christ, so not a fan of any name but Christian, which is what the book of Acts called believers.
2. Infant Baptism - I am not opposed, but not sold either. It's clear believer's baptism was done and is proper. I am just not sure either way.
3. Can anyone pray over the communion elements? If Lutheranism denies apostolic succession of Catholicism (which I do too), can any person pray over communion for the Real Presence?
Working on things - so thank you.
Hey, as one who came out of Pentecostalism/non-denominationalism, I know the feeling! There's a lot here, but I'll try and be brief!
1. Every denomination has a theological framework. And more often than not, the name of a church body does not accurately reflect its theology. This is also true for sects outside the church, and to illustrate this, think of the Mormon religion, which has its official name as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". So purely by its name, I would be forced to think that Mormons are closer to the Bible than, say, the Anglican Church. But this is of course false and easily discerned when we compare what they believe. The Anglican Church promote Christ as Lord and Saviour and Mormons don't.
Now, what about the Lutheran Church? Does it mean that we follow Luther or that Luther is our Pope? No. The word "Lutheran" is actually derogative in its origin. It was applied to a body of reforming churches by the Roman Catholic Church. This is because, historically speaking, heresies are often named after their leading figure, and in the eyes of Rome, Luther was a heretic, because he rejected the Pope and the Roman Catholic understanding of justification etc. But "Lutheran" is what eventually stuck, and now it's used in a neutral way to express a certain theological system, which can be summarised as that we are saved entirely by grace, by the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We live in an age where, in a weird way, if a church body is called something akin to "Christian Church" or "Church of Christ" etc, it's probably either going to be loosely Baptist or charismatic, or at worst a cult. Where I live, in Japan, we have a church called "Mustardseed Christian Church". They are Christian, but they are also distinctly Charismatic-Baptist. Which means, if I wanted to be derogatory, I could call them Campbellites, because they have their roots in the American Restoration Movement. Or I can go further back in history and call them Zwinglians, because much of their theological system came out of the writings of Zwingli. So the point here is not to be offensive and dismissive, but to illustrate how every theological framework has a history, and that we should be careful to not be swayed by their name. Especially because in this time, a lot of false and dangerous teaching flies under the banner of "non-denominationalism" or "Christian".
2. If we understand Baptism as a gift from God, then who are we to deny God's gift to children? Is there anything in the following thread (post 9) I can expand upon?
Is infant baptism unbiblical?
3. Yes, it's possible for any person in Christ to administer His body and blood, in the sense that it's not tied up to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, as you rightly say. But should they? In the New Testament, we do find a distinction being made between a pastoral office and laity. For example, James 3:1:
"Not many of you should become teachers ..." or call to mind the qualifications to the pastoral office in 1 Timothy 3, which is again to say that it's an office given to some, not to all. And what are those pastors charged to do? To publically preach the Word of God and to administer His gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist.
Maybe I can add to this one thing: As I used to operate in a loose Arminian framework, I remember it was very difficult for me to understand or appreciate the Eucharist. But the thing that made everything click for me is this:
In the Old Testament, the eating of the lamb was tied to literal deliverance from slavery and was only given the people of God. So it was life or death. In the New Testament, Christ fulfils this, for He is the true Lamb of God. And in the Eucharist, we eat that Lamb. So the Eucharist is the culmination of the old Passover Lamb, which is very central in the OT, but even so, only a type or shadow of what we have now in Christ. So if this meal was to be kept holy then, it's certainly not to be taken lightly now. This is why, as a church (all believers), it is good for us to entrust it to those who are prepared and trained to preach the Word. This is for good order and for the sake of our consciences. So, in a word, the Eucharist, same as Baptism, is a gift. And God can work to deliver that gift through whomever He wants. At the same time, however, it's serious stuff! And so, it's best in the hands of those who are called to the pastoral office. So it's nothing to do with the power or right of the pastor, but everything to do with right teaching, right worship, and clear consciences.
Hope this may be of some help! God bless!
