Reformed to Lutheran

[Ioustinos]

Do any of you know any books that would help someone transition from a Reformed doctrinal viewpoint to that of Lutherans?

I am interested in Lutheranism and would like to have some resources available that would address the issues someone from the Reformed faith would have in regards to Lutheran theology.

Thanks

 

[filosofer]

Howdy, and welcome to the board and to the Lutheran confession of the Christian faith.

Good place to start:

Luther's Small Catechism

Augsburg Confession

Probably the key doctrinal differences with the Reformed are addressed in the following articles:

1. Justification by grace through faith, Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV.

2. Law and Gospel, Formula of Concord, Article V

3. Lord's Supper, Formula of Concord, Article VII

4. Person of Christ, Formula of Concord, Article VIII

5. Third Use of the Law, Formula of Concord, Article, VI.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Howdy, and welcome to the board and to the Lutheran confession of the Christian faith.

Good place to start:

Luther's Small Catechism

Augsburg Confession

Probably the key doctrinal differences with the Reformed are addressed in the following articles:

1. Justification by grace through faith, Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV.

2. Law and Gospel, Formula of Concord, Article V

3. Lord's Supper, Formula of Concord, Article VII

4. Person of Christ, Formula of Concord, Article VIII

5. Third Use of the Law, Formula of Concord, Article, VI.

Good list Filo. I would also add "Spirituality of the Cross" by Dr. Gene Veith where he talks about his personal journey to Lutheranism, and the application and impact of Lutheran doctrine to his personal life. One of the best books I have ever read.

Emir, coming from a reformed background, I think Dr. Veith's book would be a good starting point in that it gives a great overview.

 

[seajoy]

I have no books to add to the list, but I do want to welcome you to our part of the forum. God's blessings.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I agree that Luther's Catechism is a good place to start with Lutheranism. As to the transition from Reformed theology, well I do know that both the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) and the LCMS (Lutheran Church MIssouri Synod) have put out publications on specific areas of theology that might be good for you to read if a couple of them are problematic or a struggle for you (I own some of the WELS ones). Being Reformed you would probably want to read something on Law and Gospel, Predestination, and the Lord's Supper. I would also encourage you to read something up on the liturgy to better understand it and the purpose of our practices in the service.
If you want a good and simple overview of Lutheran theology, particularly in the area of faith and works and how they relate to the Christian life I strongly suggest Martin Luther's Freedom of a Christian (or On Christian Liberty, depending on the translation you come across). I think it is something every Lutheran should read at least once. If you really want to dive into Lutheran Theology then the Book of Concord is the way to go, I would recommend with that "The Fortress Introduction to The Lutheran Confessions" by Gassman and Hendrix.
I would doubt that it is printed anymore, but if you can search online via ebay/amazon route you might be able to find a small book/pamphlet by Lewis Spitz called "Our Church And Others" and it is great for understanding the basic theological differences of other church bodies (including reformed) and the Lutheran one. It will provide a nice layout of some of our key doctrine and that of other churches and say whether we agree with theirs or not and why. Its copyright is 1960 out of Concordia Publishing House.
Having family who are reformed I would share that along with the big theological issues there will also be some practical differences in Lutheranism. I already mentioned the liturgical aspect, but the more regular practice of communion and a very different understanding and style of preaching is also something you would probably notice early and might struggle with as a Lutheran, particularly if you are not aware of these differences and why they are.
Hope these suggestions help, blessings as you discern the path ahead. And welcome to the Lutheran CF.
Pax

 

[Till]

and a very different understanding and style of preaching is also something you would probably notice early and might struggle with as a Lutheran, particularly if you are not aware of these differences and why they are.

Why is that so actually?

Frankly I find expository preaching following a book Sunday after Sunday more useful that just a short homily on different texts. Expository preaching helps you get into the text and really understand it.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Why is that so actually?

Frankly I find expository preaching following a book Sunday after Sunday more useful that just a short homily on different texts. Expository preaching helps you get into the text and really understand it.

I was actually referring to the fact that the sermon's focus is often not focused on the Gospel message but more on Christian living, not to say obedience and law are not important, but proclaimation of the cross event really is the central piece of the sermon from a Lutheran view.

Although along with discussions on lectionary or not (a different discussion) I was also mentioning that Lutheran sermons often do not go verse by verse "bible study" (sorry, don't know a better way to put it). And I'm not even trying to debate whether or not one is better than the other (although I do think that) I am simply noting that if someone is transitioning from Reformed to Lutheran they will probably notice and perhaps struggle with the different rhetorical and content style of preaching.

pax

 

[Ioustinos]

I was actually referring to the fact that the sermon's focus is often not focused on the Gospel message but more on Christian living, not to say obedience and law are not important, but proclaimation of the cross event really is the central piece of the sermon from a Lutheran view.

Although along with discussions on lectionary or not (a different discussion) I was also mentioning that Lutheran sermons often do not go verse by verse "bible study" (sorry, don't know a better way to put it). And I'm not even trying to debate whether or not one is better than the other (although I do think that) I am simply noting that if someone is transitioning from Reformed to Lutheran they will probably notice and perhaps struggle with the different rhetorical and content style of preaching.

pax

I listen to Issues Etc. with Pastor Todd Wilkin and I am familiar with Lutheran sermons. As you had stated the sermons are more similar to homilies than expositional preaching, although they are (or are at least meant to be) Christ centered. I've had the opportunity to visit a LCMS church where Christ was the center of the sermon and I've visited a LCMS church were Christ was only mentioned in the liturgy (and on Easter morning too ).

I understand the differences between the two styles and the reasons behind them. It would take some transition time to get used to the differences but those are minor issues. I have actually been seeking a more "historic" church rather than contemporary evangelicalism. It seems as if there is such a huge disconnect between modern evangelical churches and the first century church.

One follow up question I have which is kind of off topic is baptism. Why do Lutherans use the mode of sprinkling? I can understand paedobaptism but I am curious as to why sprinkling our pouring rather than immersion.

Sorry if that question opens up a whole can of worms

 

[BigNorsk]

I've seen a lot of Lutheran baptisms, and I've actually never seen anyone sprinkled. Baptists say Lutherans sprinkle all the time as a derogatory term.

Generally, Lutherans pour (affusion), I would have to admit some are rather stingy with the amount of water.

In any case, scripturally, we can see the modes of baptism in the Bible. Biblically, one can prove sprinkling or pouring but there actually isn't a provable case of immersion in the Bible. People read into the passage that says Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water as immersion but it isn't speaking of that. If you walked down into ankle deep water, stood there while you were baptised and walked back up onto dry land, you would perfectly fit.

This is revealed by the almost identical language used for Philip and the Ethiopian where is is said of both of them that they went down and came up. Now if that language proves immersion, then the proper mode is for both the person being baptised and the person doing the baptism to be immersed. Even those practicing immersion only don't do that.

Immersion though is within the meaning of the word and the mode is not the important thing. The problem comes that if you are dealing with someone who says they must be immersed, that they are often missing the important truths about baptism and what it is. This is a concern because when one embraces wrong teachings, then where is one's faith?

Marv

 

[Ioustinos]

I've seen a lot of Lutheran baptisms, and I've actually never seen anyone sprinkled. Baptists say Lutherans sprinkle all the time as a derogatory term.

Generally, Lutherans pour (affusion), I would have to admit some are rather stingy with the amount of water.

In any case, scripturally, we can see the modes of baptism in the Bible. Biblically, one can prove sprinkling or pouring but there actually isn't a provable case of immersion in the Bible. People read into the passage that says Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water as immersion but it isn't speaking of that. If you walked down into ankle deep water, stood there while you were baptised and walked back up onto dry land, you would perfectly fit.

This is revealed by the almost identical language used for Philip and the Ethiopian where is is said of both of them that they went down and came up. Now if that language proves immersion, then the proper mode is for both the person being baptised and the person doing the baptism to be immersed. Even those practicing immersion only don't do that.

Immersion though is within the meaning of the word and the mode is not the important thing. The problem comes that if you are dealing with someone who says they must be immersed, that they are often missing the important truths about baptism and what it is. This is a concern because when one embraces wrong teachings, then where is one's faith?

Marv

I will need to review the passages in the Bible that speak of baptisms in regards to immersion versus pouring.

A question I do have is in regards to the meaning of baptism. I would assume that what one believes baptism does or "stands for" would influence their view on the mode of baptism. For instance if one believes baptism is the act of the Christian dying with Christ and being raised with Christ (Romans 6) then immersion would fit that view. If baptism is for cleansing of sin (1 Peter 3) then pouring or affusion would fit that view.

Do you agree?

Ps. I did not mean any offence in saying that Lutherans sprinkled. I was not sure of the term that Lutherans used for their mode of baptism.

 

[LutherNut]

A question I do have is in regards to the meaning of baptism.

The Greek word "baptizo" simply means "to wash with water". There is no specific mode of washing or applying water inferred.

I would assume that what one believes baptism does or "stands for" would influence their view on the mode of baptism. For instance if one believes baptism is the act of the Christian dying with Christ and being raised with Christ (Romans 6) then immersion would fit that view. If baptism is for cleansing of sin (1 Peter 3) then pouring or affusion would fit that view.

Do you agree?

No. Baptism is purely a work of God, solely and wholly. The application of water is an outward sign of the inward work of God in the Sacrament. The method or mode of applying water has nothing to do with the efficacy of the sacrament or it's meaning. Of the two "meanings" you gave above, both are true of the Sacrament. It is the spiritual birth "from above" (John 3:3), the union with the death and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6), and the cleansing of sin and salvation (1 Peter 3:21).

 

[filosofer]

The application of water is an outward sign of the inward work of God in the Sacrament.

That is actually the Reformed explanation of a sacrament, not the Lutheran explanation. Check out David Scaer's recent book, Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace.

 

[Ioustinos]

That is actually the Reformed explanation of a sacrament, not the Lutheran explanation. Check out David Scaer's recent book, Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace.

My understanding of the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is that baptism is the washing away of sins not because the water in and of itself has any power but the act comes when the water is joined with the proclaimed Word that baptism washes away sin.

A crude formula is Water Baptism + Word of God = Cleansing of Sin

Is this correct?

 

[filosofer]

Mostly correct, but includes salvation, etc. But that is not equivalent to what LN wrote.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Luther actually said he thought the symbolism of immersion was good and it would be nice to practice it more often but not that it was a necessary form. I have seen many Lutheran baptisms, only one immersion.

Lutherans believe water + word = sacrament, but that sacrament contains many aspects of grace and neurishment. I would agree with Luthernut it is a both/and. Washes sin, dies with Christ, clothes oneself in CHrist. All that I think are ways in which the Bible describes the grace of Baptism. What is clear within Lutheran theology is that this event is the action of God.

I think what filo was critiquing was particularly Luthernut's language of 'outward sign of God's inward action.' Which is reformed language and (going back to a senior thesis I once wrote on this very issue) leads to the internalization of faith and grace and moves away from the external event of baptism, while Lutheran theology considers the outward event an actual conveyance of grace. I think that is what filo is getting at, but I could be wrong. But anyone who has read the Heidelberg Catechism will recognize the language of sign and internal action and their mind will likely then link it with reformed theology.

Pax

 

[LutherNut]

That is actually the Reformed explanation of a sacrament, not the Lutheran explanation. Check out David Scaer's recent book, Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace.

Not my best choice of words, I'll admit.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[filosofer]

Not my best choice of words, I'll admit.

Thanks for the correction.

It is so easy to slide into that. We all need encouragement; I find that I have to watch how I phrase certain things, because it can give the wrong sense.

Sadly almost all "popular" writing in this realm is from the Reformed/Evangelical perspective. Good incentive to continue to read the Book of Concord and read solid Lutheran theological works.