What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

What has convinced me that Lutheranism is the truth?

Well, Lutheranism, as far as I can tell, is straight from the Bible. So basically, the Bible convinced me that Lutheranism is the Truth.

That, and whenever I put my Lutheranism in practice, I find I lead a more blessed life. I figure that coincidences happen when God is wanting to remain anonymous... (old joke, I know).

I have grown up in a rather charismatic, but independent Christian home. My folks are awesome God-fearing people. When I moved out to Maryland, from Michigan, I had no church body and no denomination. I went to a bunch of churches and feeling unsatisfied, stopped going to church all together for about 2 years. Finally the hunger became so great that I decided to try again. I study medieval studies and art at school, so I knew a lot about the Reformation. I make statuary for the Catholic Church and am very attracted to it, but couldn't reconcile the doctrine of the church with scripture. I remember this video in my Wester Civ. class in college about Martin Luther and I was sobbing throughout the whole class- I was so moved. I thought that I would try a Lutheran church. The folks there were so genuinely welcoming, not just that cold "Nice to have you here." I immediately felt a part.

I started reading the Book of Concord and the writings of Martin Luther and was blown away. As a young person I was so intense about the Lord's Supper and never felt satisfied in the protestant churches' manner of doing it as a memorial once in awhile. I craved it! I went to a Lutheran church during college and saw how they all went up to the altar to receive from one loaf and drink from one cup and was so deeply moved. (I didn't partake myself becaue of closed communion. I understood well the reasons for closed communion and wasn't at all put off by it.) I always have talked about the "priesthood of all believers," which I do believe came from Martin Luther. On top of it all, I have continually come in contact with Lutherans who have demonstracted such fruit and peace and love in their lives. So, here I stand.

I am still having some troubles reconciling in my mind infant baptism, being raised a credo-baptist and all. I have never thought those baptisms invalid nor wrong. I am tryinig to reorient my thinking to be in line with the Word.

That is what I love most about Lutheranism- its constant driving back to the Word!

Qoheleth said:

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

Click to expand...

I would agree except for the use of one word: sacramentarian. Historically that terms does not reflect Lutheran teaching. It was the word used to describe the Reformed regarding the Lord's Supper.

filosofer said:

I would agree except for the use of one word: sacramentarian. Historically that terms does not reflect Lutheran teaching. It was the word used to describe the Reformed regarding the Lord's Supper.

Click to expand...

I believe the word he meant was "sacramental"?

Yes, Sacramental would be more accurate.

On what does Lutheranism base itself to say that it has the right interpretation of Scripture?

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose Lutheran teachings are more "intellectual" in nature than "emotional".

I don't know much about many denominations, but I do know a bit about Baptists (half of my family is, and my fiancé used to be before she converted to Lutheranism).

I will use an example, hopefully in a successful attempt to illustrate my meaning of "intellectual" over "emotional".

One main difference I can think of is how one is saved. Baptists emphasize a person asking Jesus into their heart, and feeling that conversion experience. Lutherans, on the other hand, emphasize "saved by Grace, of God, not of ourselves." That is, God saves us by His grace. God provides it.

Scripture tells us we must trust Jesus as our Savior. This trust comes from teaching, and not an emotional rush (as some of my Baptist friends have described it). The problem I, as a Lutheran, find with the "emotional" side, where a person asks Jesus into their heart, etc., is that it is something like: When I ask, when I decide, when I feel, that's when I'll be saved.

Is salvation something we do, or something we're given? If we're given salvation, then it is not up to us to ask for it. It is merely up to us to accept the Gift of Grace. But if we must seek it, if we must decide, usually as a result of an emotional rush, then it is of us.

Yet we are taught that we are saved by grace through faith, so no man may boast because of his own works.

In short, Baptists say we must ask Jesus into our heart, feel the conversion experience (something that happens naturally when one asks Him into one's heart). Lutherans say that we must trust Jesus, believe in him, but that comes from the Holy Spirit. It's a gift from God, one that we don't ask for, but one we receive in full gladness.

That's the best I can think of for explanation right this moment. I may have more for you later.

Victrixa said:

This is what I keep wondering about. As you all know, in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, what ensures the Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics of the Truth is Tradition, this 'rule of faith' in which Truth is apparently preserved from heresies or error. It's a 'rule of faith' which, says St.Basil, ECF, by which all Christians are to abide by so as not to err...

Click to expand...

Hi, Caroline. Two problems with this approach:

1. The "tradition' becomes the trump card OVER Scripture. That is why the RCC includes the doctrine of continuing revelation, and can make doctrinal proclamations that are nowhere in the Scriptures.

2. The fallacy of the "rule of Faith" as articulated by Basil is that they equate that rule of Faith with their particular church body, whether RCC or EO. But that is not the intent of Basil's quote. Nor is that the position of the Lutheran Confessions. Luther (and the Confessions) demonstrate that what they "believe, teach, and confess" is what the Church has taught. Of any of the Reformers, Luther was most familiar with the ECF. He went through many of the same struggles, and came to same conclusions. At that point he saw that the RCC, and to a lesser extent the EO, was not in line with the "rule of Faith" as a clear understanding of the Scriptures.

I was raised in a liberal tradition that allowed me to study a variety of Christian doctrine. I believe Lutheranism is correct--not to the exclusion of other Christian doctrine that is also correct--but due to the fact that there doesn't seem to be an emphasis on a piece of the Bible to the exclusion of other Biblical passages. The Lutherans keep this balance by keeping the liturgical seasons and subjects. It makes the pastors teach all of the Bible and study from all of it throughout a three year period. It is my preference to be in all of God's Word vs my perception (right or wrong) that pastors from other denominations allow themselves to have pet subjects and pet sermons because the church does not follow a prescribed path of worship.
I have a solid sense in the Lutheran Church that I am experienceing the WHOLE truth.
God Bless,
Sally

The Holy Spirit convinced me.

Caroline,

There are probably three main things that set the Lutheran interpretation of Scripture against all the other "Protestant" interpretations:

1.) The proper distinction between Law & Gospel. I don't know of any other group that does this like we do. It is the key to unlocking the Scriptures. I don't know how to emphasize this enough.

2.) The Christocentricity of the Scriptures. Some groups do somewhat better at this. But, from everything I've read, nobody finds Christ as much in the Scriptures as we do [there's gotta be a better way to write that...]. Why? They don't see how the Law is what drives us to Christ, and through faith in Christ, he has completely fulfilled the Law in our stead, and took the punishment that we so richly deserve. And not all see Christ in the types in the OT, etc.

3.) We don't allow reason to go beyond the Scriptures. This is the big distinction between Lutherans and Calvinists, two sola scriptura groups. Scripture clearly preaches election to salvation, but never once mentions another election to damnation. So that's what Lutherans believe, teach and confess. However, Calvinists say that this is not logical, (which it is not to the human mind!) so they say God does condemn some to damnation from eternity, because that is what makes sense (even though it is not Scriptural).

What other kinds of examples or further expositions do you want? We'll be glad to help!

In Christ,

Mark

Hey Rose, I got started, but thanks to numerous interuptions, I haven't finished yet, but I hope to have something up by Sunday (EO stuff).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

theologia crucis said:

Hey Rose, I got started, but thanks to numerous interuptions, I haven't finished yet, but I hope to have something up by Sunday (EO stuff).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

Click to expand...

Hey Theo, that's quite OK. I look very forward to what you are able to post...I have some reading material on the subject I hope to get to Sunday as well. Perhaps both will take my understanding to the same place!

I have to get going to class but I also hope to comeback and comment on the "rule of faith" problem. Unfortunately, its a long way to Atlanta and I had better get going!

Y'all have a GREAT day in HIM!

Rose

indeep

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...

Click to expand...

That whole post was excellent, but especially that quoted above.
I truly believe there would be a lot less division between Christians if everyone would go visit 'the other guy's' church once in a while.

For me, pretty much three words make the Lutheran church a comfortable place:

All Are Welcome.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

As I reviewed this it occured to me that filo made the correct case for the "rule of faith" and the fallacies in its application. I want to take that concept one step further to emphasize the problems we now see because of these fallacies, particularly on the RCC side. If this offends anyone, please know that is not my intention. I am just presenting my case for the ultimate rule being Scripture.

On the EO side...there seems to be an inordinate dependency on traditon however it also seems that for the EO tradition is sacred and revered so long as it does not trump scripture. (If you know this to be incorrect, please advise...I am merely repeating some things I have read.) So the "rule of faith" then remains Scripture, and to be inclusive, interpretation of Scripture is left in the hands of the EO "church". (Although Lutherans ought not be too smug about this...our interpretations have been done for us and are represented in the Book of Concord. But...as with the EO, the Book of Concord, tradition, etc., in the Lutheran church are measured against Scripture...Scripture remains the rule.)

On the the RCC side however, there is not such a discipline. Doctrine has been developed regarding things that have never been mentioned in Scripture.

• indulgences
• purgatory
• immaculate conception of Mary
• infallibility of the pope
• supremacy of the pope
• assumption of Mary

How can this doctrine be developed outside of Scripture?...the pope has given himself the authority to do this. Can the pope be trusted? Read a little church history and see some of the difficulties the popes have had with temptation. See some of the papal decrees that have been overturned. So how can one trust a rule that has historically been fouled? The rule must be the gold standard...the unimpeachable reference. History shows us that is 1) not the pope and 2) not the RCC. Both have suffered some black marks.

But what remains unimpeachable? What remains unencumbered by "black marks" and human fallibilties...the Word.

Caroline...it appears the obstacle you have with embracing the Word as the rule is the multiple interpretations of Scripture. What corrupt and fallible man does to mess things up should not in anyway reflect on the perfect rule. The standard, Scripture, remains unchanged by the taint of misinterpretation.

I wish I knew where to go next regarding bibical interpretation...I am going to leave that to someone else who may have a better handle on it, but I will close with what I have seen. Biblical interpretation will always be wrong if it is based on an incorrect understanding of God's means of saving his people. If interpretation is focused on the saving work of Christ alone, the risks of misinterpretation are minimized. If interpretation is focused on anything else...error will follow. And if interpretation is contorted by corrupt tradition? The results have the potential of even being more damaging.

Caroline, none of us can convince you that Lutheranism is the ultimate truth. I don't even think that is a particularly worthy goal. The Holy Spirit has to guide your faith. Remember that God is not the author of confusion. If you are suffering from confusion it is the result of sin or the torment of Satan. Some prayer and fasting will do far more to bring clarity than the mixed messages you will see in this forum.

Sister, I love you and I will pray for you as you struggle with this.

In Him-----R

Well done, Rose.

cenimo said:

indeep

That whole post was excellent, but especially that quoted above.
I truly believe there would be a lot less division between Christians if everyone would go visit 'the other guy's' church once in a while.
[/size][/color][/font]

Click to expand...

I am all for ecumenicalism, but I believe that there is a danger in accepting whole-heartedly practices which may not be biblical/theologically correct. On the other hand, I think a time is coming when there will be more important things to worry about than what the different denominations believe.

I didn't know a lot about other denominations before I went on my little quest, and so I went out there and looked at everything... Perhaps it is ironic then that I ended up back where I started (basically).

indeep said:

I am all for ecumenicalism, but I believe that there is a danger in accepting whole-heartedly practices which may not be biblical/theologically correct. On the other hand, I think a time is coming when there will be more important things to worry about than what the different denominations believe.

I didn't know a lot about other denominations before I went on my little quest, and so I went out there and looked at everything... Perhaps it is ironic then that I ended up back where I started (basically).

Click to expand...

Have you ever read "The Alchemist" by Paolo Coelo? Sometimes we find our treasure right where we started, but it takes the journey to realize that it has been there all along.

No, I haven't read that book, it's on my to do list now...