What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

[Victrixa]

Hi everyone!

Here I am again with my questions!

Well my question says it: What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

Having reverted back to the RCC in 2000, I have become dependant on Tradition. The RCC (as well as the Orthodox Church) both teach that the Truth is found within the Tradition of the Church. That the Tradition of the Church is the 'rule of faith' and that one must not leave the latter. The early Fathers of the Church (like St.Basil) talked about the 'rule of faith' that Christians must follow so as not to stray into heresy.

I know that Lutheranism teaches that traditions are fine as long as they don't contradict Scripture. But does Lutheranism teach that the Truth comes not only from Scripture but from a certain Tradition as well. A 'rule of faith' which protects the Truth from heresies and error?

If you can answer my questions, I would appreciate it.

God bless and seeking again,

Caroline

 

[Caelum]

Well, my family history shows being Lutheran all the way back to Norway and the days of the Huguenots, so I just figured..."Hey, not all of my relatives could be wrong"...

Haha, but honestly...before I adopted any one doctrinal belief, I researched all and found that Martin Luther's teachings were the only ones that I held true from A to Z...According to what the bible teaches. Blah.

 

[CrossWiseMag]

Victrixa,

Although God Himself ultimately did the convincing, on a worldly level, it was the Book of Concord that convinced me that Lutheranism is correct. I have been Lutheran all my life, but always questioned the role of tradition. The RCC argument against Lutheranism has essentially been, "God would not create his church, then wait 1500 years to bring out its teachings." This is a good argument, and one for which I had no answer. Then I began reading the Book of Concord.

It turns out that Lutherans are catholics. The "tradition" which the RCC lauds so mightily is in fact a "Lutheran" tradition. The Book of Concord is filled with quotations from the church fathers, extolling doctrine which we now identify as "Lutheran." It's really an amazing thing to behold.

Maybe most importantly, there are many quotes from the church fathers in which they point to the Holy Scripture as the sole rule and norm of their faith! They do rely on a sort of "living tradition," especially in the East, but they often urge their readers to compare their teachings to Scripture. Where the two contradict, they are urged to follow the holy writings. This is nothing more than the Lutheran position, Sola Scriptura.

Upon discovering these things, I realized the Roman church had control of the political hierarchy, and nothing more, at the time of the Reformation. Even a cursory reading of history in the centuries before the Reformation will show that the church was desperately needful of a thorough purification. When the Roman church excommunicated Luther, it rejected the teaching so evident in its own tradition. The Lutheran Reformation was a conservative Reformation--a return to the past of Christ's church and the pure Gospel of salvation by grace, through faith.

 

[SPALATIN]

Caroline,

I agree whole heartedly with CWM. I was Lutheran pretty much my whole youth. I stepped away for about 15 years, but found my experience in the throes of American Evangelicalism to be empty. I came back to Lutheranism because like CWM I began to read the Book of Concord and found it really answered many of my questions and had me saying yes, this is what I believe.

Scott

 

[Flipper]

Having grown up RCC, what convinced me that Lutheranism is the way to go, was when I understood the concept of grace, and that the truth comes from the Bible, not church tradition.

 

[MadeInOz]

I was a dyed in the wool lutheran for a long period of time, but I had a kind of jump off the cliff and try to fly on my own experience a few years ago, and I fell in with some people who were very charismatic/pentacostal, which opened my eyes to a 'whole new world' of christianity that had never been addressed or even mentioned in my 20 some years of being a lutheran.

In my break years, I attended a number of different churches from AOG to Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and a few independents. Some I found were great, but I always had a reason for leaving. I never felt really at home in any of them. In the end I gave up attending church altogether because I decided that I knew better than any of them. I was sick of being pushed this way and that, being told that I wasn't a christian if I wasn't baptised by full immersion, or accosted because I didn't speak in tongues. I don't hold this against the churches that I attended, it just wasn't for me. I did see, do and experience things that I had never before. In the end it took a life changing experience for me that was God slapping me around a bit and telling me "Hey, this is not a good path that you are taking." And so I went back to church.

I presently attend a Lutheran church because I believe that it fulfills my basic spiritual needs, and affords me an opportunity to outreach to others in that community, and gives me a spiritual home and grounding. Do I seek sources of information outside of this? Absolutely, but I test everything, as I test everything and consider it before I just accept what I hear in Church also. Does Lutheranism have all of the answers? Well, that depends on what is being taught, I have seen a lot of good things being taught in Lutheran churches, but I have heard a lot of very unscriptural, and detrimental things being taught also. This however is not limited to the Lutheran church by any means.

I call myself a christian, and do not affiliate myself directly with any particular denomination, or non-denominational group. I attend a lutheran church for the reasons I have stated above, but also because it is the place where I am most comfortable, I have a lot of friends/support there, and because I can get a lift from my brother. I don't have a car, so that's always an advantage.

I know that this isn't entirely answering the question, but it is just my story.

 

[CrossWiseMag]

I was sick of being pushed this way and that, being told that I wasn't a christian if I wasn't baptised by full immersion, or accosted because I didn't speak in tongues. I don't hold this against the churches that I attended, it just wasn't for me.

You should hold this against those churches. They are preaching a false gospel, and you're not the only one to turn away from the saving Gospel of Christ because of them. It's not just that their message was not for you; their message is not for anyone who seeks the comfort and peace of knowing that Christ has indeed saved them, regardless of their merits or lack of merits.

I have seen a lot of good things being taught in Lutheran churches, but I have heard a lot of very unscriptural, and detrimental things being taught also.

Like what? I wonder if these things are truly Lutheran teachings, or variations on Lutheran doctrine caused by the sinfulness of the teachers in the church.

 

[MadeInOz]

I was sick of being pushed this way and that, being told that I wasn't a christian if I wasn't baptised by full immersion, or accosted because I didn't speak in tongues. I don't hold this against the churches that I attended, it just wasn't for me.

You should hold this against those churches. They are preaching a false gospel, and you're not the only one to turn away from the saving Gospel of Christ because of them. It's not just that their message was not for you; their message is not for anyone who seeks the comfort and peace of knowing that Christ has indeed saved them, regardless of their merits or lack of merits.

I have seen a lot of good things being taught in Lutheran churches, but I have heard a lot of very unscriptural, and detrimental things being taught also.

Like what? I wonder if these things are truly Lutheran teachings, or variations on Lutheran doctrine caused by the sinfulness of the teachers in the church.

You're right, in the first part, but I felt disempowered in those situations, and it was easier for me to walk away, than to try and fight. I'm inclined towards the philosophy that we fall into the holes we are shaped to fit. In other words, a church that may be right for me, may not be so for someone else, and vice versa.

(and this relates to the first as well)

As regards your second question, they were not lutheran teachings or doctrine, they were false interpretations of scripture. We had a series of pastors who basically preached that we should effectively be sunday christians unless we had some great need. This was almost doctrine in the church, and they called pastors who were of this bent. Myself and a number of others fought for a long time to try and make changes to what was happening, but we were stymied by this almost institutionalised apathy. In the end, we just left. *sigh* We left, and a number of others have followed, fortunately finding a home in the 'next church over'. This was sort of the start of my leaving the church period, I left, but was still involved in the attempted revolution... I look at my parents who are still attending this church not out of ... a sense of belief but because they've become involved in so many things it is difficult to extricate themselves from it all.

I don't have a bone to pick with the lutheran church as a whole, but... one's experience shapes one's perspective.

 

[Willy]

I am not sure that I have ever been convinced that Lutheranism "is the truth." But I am convinced that no other perspective "bears witness to the truth" as poignantly or as deeply as does Lutheranism. For me, human experience helps verify the understandings about life that Lutheranism identifies. Daily life bears witness to the fact that "I am in bondage to sin and cannot free myself."

 

[filosofer]

Well my question says it: What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

Study of Scripture over many years (many times through the entire Bible). Especially Matthew, Luke, Romans, 2 Corinthians, galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 John in the NT; and Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and Zephaniah in the OT.

Then having re-read the Confessions (many times, especially Art. IV of Apology), I accepted what it taught because it agreed with Scripture.

I think this direction is critical. many use the Confessions to judge whether Scripture is correct. But Scripture is the authority which norms the Confessions.

 

[SPALATIN]

God convinced me that Lutheranism is the truth through the scriptures.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Why do I see Lutheransim as the Truth?

I just finished a survey course on Church history...it wasn't hard to see that the Lutheran reform really did bring the articles of faith back to those supported by the early church fathers. I have this mental image of a line which runs along time and represents correct beliefs, truth, if you will.

It isn't hard to see that over time as the RCC became more involved in temporal power their line strayed farther and farther from the truth line--although I do not discount some periods of correction, just insufficient correction. I still don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to comment knowledgeably but I am not yet convinced there are significant differences when one looks at the basics. I think the EO line runs reasonably close to the truth line. I see a breakaway from the RCC line and a return to the truth line...and that return represents Lutheranism (the reform of Catholicism--I don't think the RCC left us as some Lutherans might say). Of all the lines representing all the denominations today I see Lutheranism running closest to the truth line...followed closely by EO then the varying degrees of deviation associated with the other denoms after...with the RCC being pretty far from it (although not as far as some).

Realize the impact of tradition when the tradition is corrupt...corrupted tradition only has the potential of generating further corruption (muliplication factor) unless reform takes place. When corrupt man is involved, there will be corruption. Accordingly, there absolutely must be a norm and rule, and that is Scripture. Building a faith system on top of a corrupted tradition is like the house built on sand.

I can't say I know all of Lutheranism well enough to say it is the absolute Truth...but of what I know, I am convinced it is faithful to the Scriptures...and that is the ONLY, absolutely ONLY reference point I can trust. And frankly, the only reason I can trust the Scriptures is through the faith that has been given to me...so I praise God for that!

Incidentally, I also enjoyed a period which I call my American Evangelical Bapticostal period...and unlike Scott, I was completely fulfilled in that...but it just wasn't what God had in mind for me. I had to learn that what "I" thought "I" wanted in faith and what "I" liked wasn't necessarily the truth nor was it part of God's plan for my life. I must be the most prideful, selfcentered person on this planet because I seem to get repeated correction in this and its always a surprise!!! :o

God give you His peace

Rose

 

[SPALATIN]

Why do I see Lutheransim as the Truth?

I just finished a survey course on Church history...it wasn't hard to see that the Lutheran reform really did bring the articles of faith back to those supported by the early church fathers. I have this mental image of a line which runs along time and represents correct beliefs, truth, if you will.

It isn't hard to see that over time as the RCC became more involved in temporal power their line strayed farther and farther from the truth line--although I do not discount some periods of correction, just insufficient correction. I still don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to comment knowledgeably but I am not yet convinced there are significant differences when one looks at the basics. I think the EO line runs reasonably close to the truth line. I see a breakaway from the RCC line and a return to the truth line...and that return represents Lutheranism (the reform of Catholicism--I don't think the RCC left us as some Lutherans might say). Of all the lines representing all the denominations today I see Lutheranism running closest to the truth line...followed closely by EO then the varying degrees of deviation associated with the other denoms after...with the RCC being pretty far from it (although not as far as some).

Realize the impact of tradition when the tradition is corrupt...corrupted tradition only has the potential of generating further corruption (muliplication factor) unless reform takes place. When corrupt man is involved, there will be corruption. Accordingly, there absolutely must be a norm and rule, and that is Scripture. Building a faith system on top of a corrupted tradition is like the house built on sand.

I can't say I know all of Lutheranism well enough to say it is the absolute Truth...but of what I know, I am convinced it is faithful to the Scriptures...and that is the ONLY, absolutely ONLY reference point I can trust. And frankly, the only reason I can trust the Scriptures is through the faith that has been given to me...so I praise God for that!

Incidentally, I also enjoyed a period which I call my American Evangelical Bapticostal period...and unlike Scott, I was completely fulfilled in that...but it just wasn't what God had in mind for me. I had to learn that what "I" thought "I" wanted in faith and what "I" liked wasn't necessarily the truth nor was it part of God's plan for my life. I must be the most prideful, selfcentered person on this planet because I seem to get repeated correction in this and its always a surprise!!! :o

God give you His peace

Rose

The only thing I will say about my "Baptist" years is that when I was finished I was able to look at those years more objectively than I was before. I had some good years, but there were times I felt uncomfortable. One of those was when I was told that I had to go through an immersion Baptism to belong to a church. I did go through with it, but made sure I told the congregation what I really believed.

 

[Victrixa]

Luther's Rose (or anyone else),

If I understand well, there is a 'line of Truth' and many times in history, Christians have been straying away from it. Could that 'line of Truth' be the 'rule of faith' that the Early Church Fathers spoke about. That 'rule of faith' would be the Tradition of the Church in which the Truth is preserved from error. Do Lutherans adhere to a certain Tradition in this sense, a 'rule of faith' from which Christians should not stray from or else they'll be in error and believe heresies?

Thanks everyone for your replies!

Pax Christi,

Caroline

 

[Qoheleth]

Lutherans or actually the Lutheran confessors understood themselves to be the continuation of the catholic church in the West. It is amazing how the "reformed catholic church" is confessing, tradtional, sacramentarian, and complete in the word of God without speaking where scripture is silent.

The Lutheran Holy Mass is that of Our heavenly Father giving to us, in the Sacrament of communion, forgiveness and life and then we praising and worshipping his work done within us. Amen

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Luther's Rose (or anyone else),

If I understand well, there is a 'line of Truth' and many times in history, Christians have been straying away from it. Could that 'line of Truth' be the 'rule of faith' that the Early Church Fathers spoke about. That 'rule of faith' would be the Tradition of the Church in which the Truth is preserved from error. Do Lutherans adhere to a certain Tradition in this sense, a 'rule of faith' from which Christians should not stray from or else they'll be in error and believe heresies?

Thanks everyone for your replies!

Pax Christi,

Caroline

Please don't misunderstand...this line thing...its just a mental tool I have contructed to visualize the church through the ages. It has nothing to do with any doctrinal "rule of faith", authority of tradition, etc. The rule, the norm, the authority is scripture...it is that by which all else, including tradition must be measured. Nothing else.

Does that make things more clear? Sorry if I confused you.

Peace

Rose

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Lutherans or actually the Lutheran confessors understood themselves to be the continuation of the catholic church in the West. It is amazing how the "reformed catholic church" is confessing, tradtional, sacramentarian, and complete in the word of God without speaking where scripture is silent.

The Lutheran Holy Mass is that of Our heavenly Father giving to us, in the Sacrament of communion, forgiveness and life and then we praising and worshipping his work done within us. Amen

Dead on! -----R

 

[theologia crucis]

What CrossWiseMag wrote is excellent! I concur. And I agree with filosofer, especially about Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Again, when my wife "forced" me to join her church, I did considerable investigation into various doctrinal statements of various churches, and I found the Lutheran position to clearly be the most Scriptural, and it is very historical, especially when one judges the Patristics by the Scriptures, and not vice versa.

And Rose is correct in post 16.

And Rose, EO is VERY close to RCC. I went to one of their links to EO stuff last night, and their teacing of grace looks very close to the RCC teacing on gratia infusa, and they reject the Lutheran gratuitis Dei favor (see pp 242-254 in Mueller). Not to mention what it said on justification. The two teachings aren't even close. I was hoping to post some of my findings in the EO thread tomorrow night during the debate (if I don't get distracted...).

Robert Preus' book Justification and Rome (from CPH) does an excellent job of going through the differences in sin, grace, justification, etc., between the two camps, or at least between Confessional Lutheranism and Tridentine Catholocism...

 

[ByzantineDixie]

And Rose, EO is VERY close to RCC. I went to one of their links to EO stuff last night, and their teacing of grace looks very close to the RCC teacing on gratia infusa, and they reject the Lutheran gratuitis Dei favor (see pp 242-254 in Mueller). Not to mention what it said on justification. The two teachings aren't even close. I was hoping to post some of my findings in the EO thread tomorrow night during the debate (if I don't get distracted...).

Robert Preus' book Justification and Rome (from CPH) does an excellent job of going through the differences in sin, grace, justification, etc., between the two camps, or at least between Confessional Lutheranism and Tridentine Catholocism...

Alright...I am always ready to learn more...I still have this nagging sense that we don't understand precisely what it is they are saying. I do believe some of the accuracy gets lost in the language and the cultural differences between east and west. I'd rather have a comparison from a neutral source schooled in both Eastern and Western thought...but I realize that's asking alot!

Anyway...I look forward to what you can post. Thanks!-----R

 

[theologia crucis]

Alright...I am always ready to learn more...I still have this nagging sense that we don't understand precisely what it is they are saying. I do believe some of the accuracy gets lost in the language and the cultural differences between east and west. I'd rather have a comparison from a neutral source schooled in both Eastern and Western thought...but I realize that's asking alot!

Anyway...I look forward to what you can post. Thanks!-----R

That is probably true (the bolded)! My German Lutheran pastor married an Asian woman, and he was a philosphy major, and he talks on a regular basis of the difficulties in communications they have! They just think differently!

There are definitely some different thought processes between the Eastern and Western minds, but I think I've found some clear statements that easily show we (LC & EO) do NOT mean the same thing when it comes to specific theological issues...

Good night, all! I get to take my daughter to lunch tomorrow! I'm so excited!